Madras High Court Sets Aside Police Promotion and Category Transfer: 'No Valid Government Order Under Rule 9(d)', Relaxation Granted Without Special Circumstances or Completed Probation
Safiya Malik
In a judgement delivered on 25 March 2025, the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan, set aside the appellant’s transfer and promotion within the Tamil Nadu Police Force. The court nullified the transfer of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) from Category-2 (Armed Reserve) to Category-1 (Taluk Police), along with the subsequent promotion, stating that the transfer violated mandatory rules.
The Bench stated that the issuance of G.O.(Ms.) No.407 dated 05.06.2014, which permitted the appellant to undergo training towards the transfer, did not constitute a valid order of category transfer as required under Rule 9(d) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Service.
The writ appeals arose from a common order passed in W.P.Nos.22959 of 2018 and 24643 of 2021. These petitions challenged the transfer and promotion of the appellant, Muthu Manickam, from Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Category-2 (Armed Reserve) to Category-1 (Taluk Police) and his subsequent inclusion in the panel for promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police in Category-1.
The recruitment process originated from a notification dated 01.01.1994 by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, calling for applications to fill 500 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Men). As a result of petitions filed by in-service candidates, the Government later introduced a 20% reservation for them through G.O.(Ms.)No.1054 dated 13.07.1995. The number of posts was subsequently increased to 1100.
The total recruitment included 1100 directly recruited candidates and 267 in-service candidates. Among them, 500 directly recruited candidates joined the Taluk Police first. The rest joined later in either Armed Reserve or Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion based on marks and availability.
The appellant, due to lower marks, was appointed to the Armed Reserve. Over time, he was promoted to DSP (Category-2). He later submitted a representation for transfer to Category-1. This was recommended by the Additional Director General of Police and forwarded to the Government by the Director General of Police.
Based on the recommendation, G.O.(Ms.)No.407 dated 05.06.2014 was issued. The Government, exercising its power under Rule 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, relaxed Rules 6(a) and 10(a) of the Special Rules and permitted the appellant to undergo training.
Subsequently, the appellant completed training and was posted as DSP Category-1 on 01.05.2016. He was later included in the promotion panel and appointed as Additional Superintendent of Police for the year 2020-2021.
Private respondents, who were part of the original 500 directly recruited candidates with higher merit and placed in Taluk Police, challenged the Government Order and subsequent promotion in two writ petitions.
The private respondents argued that the appellant had bypassed mandatory conditions, including completion of probation, training, and passing required tests. They further argued that Rule 10(a) permits transfer from Category-2 to Category-1 only under "very special cases" and that the Government Order merely enabled training without effecting the actual transfer, which required a separate Government order under Rule 9(d).
The Court examined the procedural history and the governing rules. It noted that Rule 10(a) permits transfer of DSPs from Category-2 to Category-1 only in "very special cases" and upon fulfilment of four conditions:
(i) possesses a good record of service; (ii) has completed the prescribed period of probation as DSP Category-2; (iii) has undergone institutional and practical training; (iv) has passed the prescribed tests.
The Bench observed that the appellant had not completed his probation when the Government Order was issued. The order was passed on 05.06.2014, while the appellant had been appointed as DSP (Category-2) only on 05.12.2012, with the probation period ending on 04.12.2014.
Further, the Court held that although G.O.(Ms.) No.407 allowed the appellant to undergo training, it did not amount to an order of transfer under Rule 9(d), which mandates that "all transfers from one category to another in Class II shall be made by the State Government."
The Court recorded:
"When no order as contemplated under Rule 9(d) was actually passed by transferring the appellant to Category-1, it was not within the domain of the Director General of Police to post the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-1 and thereafter to include in the panel of Additional Superintendent of Police in Category-1."
On the exercise of Rule 48 to relax rules, the Court noted:
"Except the fact that the appellant has served as PSO to the Chief Minister, there was no exigency or any special exemplary service that necessitated the Government to exercise the power under Rule 48."
The Bench stated that permitting such relaxation without justifiable cause could demoralize the more meritorious candidates:
"This act of allowing the appellant to have undue advantage by converting from Category-2 to Category-1 by violating the mandatory requirements, will definitely demoralize the meritorious 770 police officers."
The Court upheld the decision of the writ court and dismissed both appeals. It affirmed that:
"The appellant shall be deemed to have been continued in Category-2 Armed Reserve all through and whatever benefits he is entitled to with further service prospects in the said stream shall be extended."
The Bench concluded:
"In view of the above deliberations, we are not able to fault the decision arrived at by the writ court and as such, the orders of the writ court are sustained. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. S. Janarthanam for Mr. G. Mohana Krishnan
For Respondents: Mr. Balan Haridas, Mr. M.A. Gouthaman and Mr. R. Krishna Kumar, Mr. K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader
Case Title: Muthu Manickam v. S. Prabakaran & Others / G. Muthu Manickam v. P. Stephen & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:771
Case Number: W.A.Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2024
Bench: Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan
[Read/Download order]
