About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Monday, March 31, 2008

HC upholds selection of 700 police SIs

Chennai, March 28: The Madras High Court today upheld the selection of nearly 700 police Sub-Inspectors (SIs) by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board during March last year.
A Division Bench comprising Mr Justice S J Mukhopadhaya and Mr Justice M Venugopal upheld the selection and dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed by the non-selected candidates, including one M Arul Manimaran, a grade-II police constable.
Dismissing the petitions, the Bench observed that there was no malpractices in the selection process.
''There were no malpractices. The selections were made purely on merit and the selected candidates were undergoing training'', it added.
The writ appeal was filed before the Bench after the single Judge headed by Mr Justice K Venkatraman had on November 11 last year upheld the selection process held in March last year.
In their writ appeal, they contended that till 1979, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) was the selection authority for the post of SIs. Thereafter it was conducted by the State Director General of Police after the formation of Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board in 1991, which was only a substitute for TNPSC and the Board has its own procedure in conducting the examinations.
While selection, the Recruitment Board had not followed the well-established procedures, the petitioner claimed.
Alleging that there were huge malpractices in the selection, especially in awarding marks in the interview, the petitioners sought to quash the selection list and include their names in the selection list. -Bureau Report Chennaionline.com; Published: Saturday, March 29, 2008

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment