The Hindu : National : Supreme Court issues notice to Home Secretary, DGP

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 11, 2006

National

National

Supreme Court issues notice to Home Secretary, DGP

J. Venkatesan

Petition questions decision to deploy anti-dowry cell DSPs for general duty

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary on a special leave petition, questioning the validity of a policy decision to deploy 16 women Deputy Superintendents of Police for general duty, though they were originally selected for heading the anti-dowry cells in districts.

A Bench of Justice H.K. Sema and Justice P.P. Naoelkar also issued notice to the Director-General of Police and 19 other police officers after hearing arguments from counsel for the petitioner P.P. Rao and counsel B. Balaji, who argued that the decision violated various rulings of the apex court.

The petition said that in November 1994, the Government decided to recruit 26 women DSPs, on a temporary basis, for anti-dowry cells. In 1995, however, it said the posts were likely to be made permanent. In May 1997, 25 candidates were appointed, but only 20 joined the Police Training College. After four dropped out, 16 women DSPs were appointed in various districts. Subsequently, the DGP office published the Establishment List, including the women DSPs in the seniority list and re-deploying them in the force. The affected persons moved the State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their claims. The High Court, by its August 2005 judgement, also upheld the decision. The present petition by T. Venmathi and others is directed against this judgment.

They contended that the rules governing recruitment could not be relaxed, and those whose appointments were made in relaxation of the recruitment rules by granting 100 per cent reservation for women were not entitled to seniority as against the officers recruited as per the rules against substantive vacancies.

Further, in the absence of a provision in the rules, merger of persons recruited in relaxation of the rules into the cadre was not permissible.

They also argued that the service rendered before the date of merger was not liable to be counted for seniority so as to cause prejudice to regular members of the cadre who were recruited strictly in accordance with the rules against substantive vacancies.

The petition sought quashing of the impugned judgment and an interim stay on its operation.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail