G. Ravanan Vs. The Director General of Police, Chennai and Others

G. Ravanan vs The Director General of Police, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Nov 25, 2015

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1178725

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1178725
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: D. Hariparanthaman
Decided On: Nov 25, 2015
Case Number: W.P (MD) No. 20928 of 2015
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G. Ravanan

Respondent

The Director General of Police, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

.....district. according to him, he is to be included in the panel of inspector of police fit for promotion to the post of deputy superintendent of police for the year 2013-2014. 2. the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not included in the panel for promotion on the ground that a criminal a case was pending against him vide p.r.no.20/14 and a charge memo was issued under rule 3(b) tamil nadu police sub-ordinate service (discipline and appeal) rules 1955. it is now stated that the disciplinary proceedings ended in his favour and the charges were dropped. hence, he made a representation on 09.11.2015 to the first respondent to include him in the panel for promotion to the post of deputy superintendent of police for the year 2013-2014. 3. in the light of the afore-said facts and circumstances of the case, he seeks a direction to the first respondent to dispose of his representation dated 09.11.2015, since his juniors were promoted and he was denied promotion due to the pendency of the proceedings. 4. in the light of the above, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter or otherwise, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of his representation of the petitioner dated 09.11.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Inspectors of Police fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 2013-14 and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to promote the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police from the date on which juniors were promoted by taking into account of ''Further Action Dropped in P.R.No.20/14 issued U/r. 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Ordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railways, Chennai, in his proceedings in Tha.Ko.20/14 rule 3 (b) dated 25.09.2015 and by considering his representation dated 09.11.2015 within the period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.)

1. The petitioner is serving as Inspector of Police at Sivagangai District. According to him, he is to be included in the panel of Inspector of Police fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 2013-2014.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not included in the panel for promotion on the ground that a criminal a case was pending against him vide P.R.No.20/14 and a charge memo was issued under Rule 3(b) Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Ordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. It is now stated that the disciplinary proceedings ended in his favour and the charges were dropped. Hence, he made a representation on 09.11.2015 to the first respondent to include him in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 2013-2014.

3. In the light of the afore-said facts and circumstances of the case, he seeks a direction to the first respondent to dispose of his representation dated 09.11.2015, since his juniors were promoted and he was denied promotion due to the pendency of the proceedings.

4. In the light of the above, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter or otherwise, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of his representation of the petitioner dated 09.11.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2015 Same Parties G. Ravanan vs The Director General of Police, Chennai and Others Same Subject Education Same Judge D. Hariparanthaman