Madras High Court
K.Muthu vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 2023
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177,
2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Delivered on
09.04.2025 24.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos. 1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177,
2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
K.Muthu .. Appellant in WA No.1985 of 2024
B. Suresh .. Appellant in WA No.1986 of 2024
A. Sivarajan .. Appellant in WA No.2172 of 2024
K.Dhatshayeni .. Appellant in WA No.2173 of 2024
M.Parimal Priya .. Appellant in WA No.2176 of 2024
G.Kamala .. Appellant in WA No.2177 of 2024
G.Senthil Kumar .. Appellant in WA No.2181 of 2024
N. Ulagammal .. Appellant in WA No.2184 of 2024
P.Rajapandian .. Appellant in WA No.2185 of 2024
K. Gopi .. Appellant in WA No.2186 of 2024
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177,
2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Home (Police) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Police Head Quarters,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (TS),
Technical Services,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. ...Respondents in all the Appeals
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the common order made in Writ Petition Nos. 4816, 4810, 4817,
4812, 4807, 4809, 4808 and 4815 of 2015 dated 25.07.2023, the order in
Writ Petition No.4876 of 2015 dated 22.08.2022 and WP No.4877 of 2015
dated 22.08.2022.
For Appellants : Mr.V. Prakash, Senior Counsel
(in all the Appeals) For M/s.P.Arumugavel
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177,
2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
(in all the Appeals) Additional Advocate General
Asst. By Mr.E.Vijay Anand
Additional Government Pleader
for RR1 to 3
****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Aggrieved by the common order dated 25.07.2023 made in WP Nos. 4816, 4810, 4817, 4812, 4807, 4809, 4808 and 4815 of 2015 and the order in Writ Petition No.4876 of 2015 dated 22.08.2022 and WP No.4877 of 2015 dated 22.08.2022, the appellants have preferred these Appeals. The issue involved in these appeals relates to the seniority of the appellants and it is common to all the Writ Petitions, hence the appeals are also disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The appellants took part in the selection for the post of Sub Inspector (Technical), which was introduced in the year 1999 and Adhoc 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 Rules for the appointments were made on 18.01.1999 under G.O.Ms. No.53. The selection process began with a notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) for the year 1999-2000. All the appellants took part in the said selection and they were successful in the written examination and the interview. Thereafter, they were referred to medical examination.
3. As far as the three appellants viz. the appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.2172, 2176 and 2181 of 2024, they were not immediately appointed as they did not clear the medical examination, particularly on eyesight. In fact, the candidature of the appellants in WA Nos.2176 and 2181 of 2024 were rejected by orders dated 09.11.2001 and 28.11.2000. Those two candidates approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and upon directions of the Tribunal, a second medical examination was conducted for them on 02.08.2002 and 27.09.2002, in which they were declared fit. However, the appointment orders for them were issued on 02.09.2004 and 15.09.2004. 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
4. As regards the appellant in WA No.2172 of 2024, he did not clear the medical test held on 27.11.2000 and his candidature was rejected on 27.09.2001. However, he was referred to the Egmore Eye Hospital on 13.11.2001 and there was a second Medical Board, which examined him on 05.04.2004. Since he was cleared by the second Medical Board, the appointment order was issued to him on 08.10.2004.
5. For the other candidates, viz. the appellants in WA Nos.1985, 1986, 2173, 2177, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024, there was a delay in referring them to the medical test, and they were referred to medical test in the months of November 2001, April 2002 and May 2002. All these seven candidates cleared the test, but they were not appointed. The appointment orders for them were issued only on 14.09.2004 and 15.09.2004. The issue of seniority of these candidates, who were selected by a common recruitment process, which commenced in the year 2000 was to be decided on the basis of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, and Rule 25 of the said Rules deals with seniority. 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
6. As per proviso to Rule 25 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, the Seniority of Sub Inspectors recruited directly shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examination in the Police Training College, Chennai. The issue as to what would constitute the final examination became a subject matter of controversy, which led to Writ Proceedings before this court. The Adhoc Rules that were framed in the year 1999 in respect of recruitment of Sub Inspectors (Technical) are silent about the seniority. But the Adhoc Rules provide for training and rule 10 of the said Adhoc Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 18.01.1999 reads as follows:
10 Training:
(a) Every person appointed to the post of Sub-
Inspector (Technical), shall undergo a training for a period of three months in the Police Training College. The training programme shall include the following:
INDOOR--
6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
(i) Organisational structure of Police Force and badges of rank.
(ii) Rudiments of Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act XLV of 1860);Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act I of 1872) and Minor Acts.
(iii) Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964.
(iv) Introduction of computer MIS and computer-based message transmission system.
(v) Study of wireless communication.
OUTDOOR:
(i) Physical training exercise, Yoga, Meditation.
(ii) Drill without arms, Sections 17 to 61 of Drill and Training Manual of Tamil Nadu Police. 7/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
(iii) Games and athletics.
On completion of training, a suitable test shall be conducted and the minimum marks for a pass shall be 40 per cent.
(b) Every person appointed to the post of Sub-
Inspector (Technical) shall also undergo three months Institutional Training at Police Telecommunication Branch, Technical Training School. They shall be trained in--
(i) Functioning of Telecommunication equipments used in Police Organisation, viz., very High Frequency Micro wave, Time, Divisional Multi Access, Ultra High Frequency and computer based message Transmission System.
(ii) Operation of High Frequency link.
8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
(iii) Erection, installation and commissioning of various telecommunication equipments.
(iv) Maintenance of equipments of various types and other gadgets, namely, very high frequency, Microwave, Time Divisional Multi Access, Exchange and Message Transmission System.
(v) Installation and commissioning of Repeater Stations Central Rooms and Workshops.
(vi) Store and Workshop Management
(viii) Research and Development:
A suitable test shall be conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Technical Service) duly assisted by the Director, Police Telecommunication Branch at the end of the training and the minimum marks for a pass in the test shall be 50 per cent. 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 No Technical or special pay shall be paid during the period of training.
7. As we had already pointed out, proviso to Rule 25 (a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, prescribes the marks obtained in the examination after training at the Police Training College as the basis for fixation of seniority. Rule 10 of the Adhoc Rules extracted above prescribes two examinations one under 10(a) and other under 10(b). The issue as to whether what would constitute the final examination as per Rule 25(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, was agitated before this court and the same was finally resolved by this court by its judgment dated 22.12.2023 made in WA No.1448 of 2018.
8. A Division Bench of this court after analysing the import of Rule 10(a) and 10(b) of the Adhoc Rules as well as proviso to Rule 25 (a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, concluded that the seniority shall be fixed based on both the tests conducted under Rule 10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 10(a) as well as Rule 10(b) of the Adhoc Rules and both the marks added up together will be the basis for fixing the seniority. Therefore, the modality of fixing the seniority among the Sub Inspectors (Technical) recruited in the year 1999-2000 was finalised by this court only on 22.12.2023.
9. Even during the pendency of the dispute regarding seniority, the appellants had moved this court seeking directions to fix seniority as per the marks obtained in the examinations conducted by the Police Training College after the completion of training as per the judgment in WA No.211 of 2009 dated 21.04.2009 which held that it is the marks obtained in the examination held by the Police Training College after completion of training, which would govern the seniority in respect of the candidates who were selected through one single selection process irrespective of the date of appointment. The Division Bench in the said judgment had in turn relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2008 (1) SCC 290.
10. The clime of the appellants was resisted by the department, 11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 contending that the appellants are guilty of delay and latches. It was the further contention of the department that the appellants, though, were selected under a single selection process were appointed later only in the year 2004. Therefore, they cannot be treated on par with those were appointed in the year 2001 itself and hence the appellants were placed at the end of the list of Sub Inspectors (Technical), who were appointed pursuant to the selection process held in the year 1999- 2000. It was also contented that in view of Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules the probation of the appellants had commenced only from the date on which they had joined service and therefore, they cannot claim seniority.
11. The Writ Court accepted the contention of the respondent on the ground of delay and latches and dismissed the Writ Petitions concluding that this will unsettle the settled seniority. Aggrieved the appellants are before us.
12. We have heard Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.P.Arumugavel, for the appellants in all the appeals and 12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
13. Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.Raghu vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 221, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had pointed out that once marks secured in the examination conducted by the Police Training College are made the basis for fixation of seniority, irrespective of the dates of appointments or irrespective of the dates on which the candidates were sent for training all candidates selected in one batch will have to be treated as belonging to the same batch and their seniority will be determined on the basis of the marks secured by them in the examination. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, dehors the fact that the appellants were appointed on subsequent dates their seniority will have to be governed only by the marks that they secured in the examination conducted by the Police Training College, after completion of 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 the training.
14. Mr Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents while conceding that the seniority will have to be fixed only by the marks obtained in the examination conducted by the Police Training College would, however, contend that the appellants were appointed only in 2004, therefore, they cannot claim seniority with effect from an anterior date so as to enable them to have a march over the candidates, who were appointed before them. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General would also submit that in view of Rules 6 of the Adhoc Rules, the date of entering into service would become relevant than the marks which are obtained in the examinations.
15. We have considered the rival submissions.
16. As far as the appellants are concerned, they took part in the selection, which was held in the year 2000, once they are selected they are 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 appointed and thereafter, they are sent for training. After completion of the training, there is an examination conducted by the Police Training College. Proviso to Rule 25 (a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, which admittedly governs the seniority of directly recruited Sub Inspectors, including the Sub Inspectors (Technical) reads as follows:
25. Seniority
(a) The seniority of a person in any class or category of the service shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the appointing authority, subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority, unless he has been appointed temporarily under sub rule (d) of Rule 10 or sub rule (b) of Rule 15, as the case may be.
Provided that in the case of Sub Inspectors 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 (recruited direct) (Category 2 of Class 1) the seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examination in the Police Training College, Chennai.
17. From the above, it is clear that the seniority is determined neither by the marks obtained in the selection process nor by the date of joining. The seniority will depend on the marks obtained in the examinations conducted by the Police Training College, after the training is completed. Till the training is completed all the candidates who were selected in one batch or one process of selection, remain in same level and only upon completion of training and after securing a pass in the examination, their seniority is determined. If there is a delay in the training due to certain extraneous reasons which cannot be attributed to the candidate themselves, the seniority of the candidates cannot be made dependent on the date of joining, as they are not responsible for the delay.
18. Out of the ten cases on hand in at least three cases, the 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 candidature was rejected because of an erroneous medical test. Subsequently, when a retest was done on the directions of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, these candidates have cleared the test and therefore, they were not responsible for the delay. Moreover, the delay occurred due to the wrongful rejection in certain cases and the delay in conducting the medical examination for the other candidates. It is not shown that the candidates were responsible for the delay. In fact, there is enough material to show that the delay occurred due to the erroneous rejection and non-conduct of medical examination by the Authorities.
19. In case of M. Parimal Priya, the appellant in Writ Appeal No.2176 of 2024 her candidature was rejected on 09.11.2001, she went before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed a retest, which was done on 02.08.2002 and she was cleared for appointment. However, the appointment order was issued only on 02.09.2004, after nearly two years. Similarly, in the case of G.Senthil Kumar, the appellant in Writ Appeal No.2181 of 2024, his Candidature was rejected on 28.11.2000, the second medical test was conducted on 27.09.2001, but the appointment 17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 order was made only on 15.09.2004, after a delay of three years.
20. In the case of Mr.A.Sivarajan, the appellant in WA No.2172 of 2024, though the medical test was conducted on 13.11.2001, he was again referred to the Medical Board on 05.04.2004 and his appointment was made on 08.10.2004. The case of the other appellants, they cleared the medical test in November 2001, April and May 2002, but their appointment orders were issued only on 14.09.2004 and 15.09.2004, again after a delay of nearly two years. There is no explanation for the said delay in the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court.
21. On 16.08.2001, The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Technical Services has written to the Director of Tamil Nadu uniformed Services Recruitment Board, requiring the Board to complete the re- examination of vision for these candidates and send them at the earliest. In response, the Director General of Police and the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board had, on 06.03.2002 stated that though the candidates are cleared the medical examination, Police 18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 Verification Reports are awaited. However, the appointment orders came to be issued two years thereafter. This by itself would demonstrate that the candidates were not responsible for the delay.
22. As far as the legal position is concerned, we find that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.Raghu vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 221, would directly apply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration different scenarios that would arise in fixation of seniority when seniority depends on marks secured in a subsequent examination and while considering the delay in appointments or the seniority of the candidates, who were issued with appointment orders because of the failure of the selected candidates to join, had held as follows:
25. In “Consideration One” and “Consideration Two” above, we have concluded, that even though the appointees in question were deputed for training on 14-6-1992, their seniority had to be determined along with the candidates who had been 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 deputed for training on 15-7-1991. We shall now endeavour to consider the manner of fixing inter se seniority of the candidates, who were selected in the process of selection conducted in furtherance of the Notification dated 22-1-1991, by the Recruitment Board, but had not been appointed on account of the fact, that they did not fall within the number of vacancies advertised. It is however relevant to notice, that after the issuance of the letter dated 11-4-
1991/7-5-1991, whereby provisionally selected candidates were deputed for training to fill up the advertised vacancies for the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police in all the seven zones, it came to be realised, that all the provisionally selected candidates did not join the police training college(s) for the said training. So far as Zone V (Warangal range) is concerned, only 58 candidates joined training. At that very moment, it was open to the appointing authority to depute further candidates for training, 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 out of those whose names fell immediately below the names of candidates deputed for training vide letter dated 11-4-1991/7-5-1991, against the balance vacancies. The competent authority, however, delayed in deputing the names of these candidates. It eventually deputed these candidates for training on 14-6-1992.
26. From the factual position depicted herein above, it is not possible for us to accept, that the candidates, who were deputed for training on 15-7- 1991, and those deputed for training on 14-6-1992 to fulfil the deficiency, can be described as two different batches. The selection process having been joint, and in furtherance of the same Notification dated 22-1- 1991 (issued by the Recruitment Board), it is inevitable for us to conclude, that the candidates deputed to the two different courses of training (on 15-7-1991 and 14-6-1992) were essentially 21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 candidates belonging to a singular batch, who were selected through a common process of selection. In fact, the instant inference, insofar as the issue of inter se seniority is concerned, is inevitable, as the dates on which the candidates were deputed for training, are inconsequential, so far as Rule 15 is concerned.
27. Rule 15 leaves no room for any doubt, that even the merit position in the selection process is not to be taken into consideration, while determining the inter se seniority of candidates selected from a common process of selection. If we were to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants, that those deputed in the first batch should be placed above all those deputed in the second batch, we would necessarily be placing the selected candidates in two groups, based on their merit position in the selection process. Those deputed for training in the two batches (of 15-7-1991 and 14-6-1992), came to 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 be so deputed, only because of their respective merit position in the selection process. This determination would be in clear breach of the proviso to Rule 15, which postulates, that inter se seniority of Sub- Inspectors of Police, is not to be determined in accordance with the merit list drawn up “at the time of their selection”. The seniority of candidates, who are selected from a common process of selection, is to be determined on the basis of the final aggregate marks obtained by them, during the course of their training, at the police training college(s) in the State of Andhra Pradesh. That being the mandate of the Rule, we are of the considered view, that for candidates who had participated in a common process of selection, irrespective of the dates on which they were deputed for training, their inter se seniority is liable to be determined, on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by them, at the final examination at the police training college concerned. 23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 This interpretation placed by us on Rule 15 of the Service Rules, satisfies the underlying principle given effect to in the Rule, namely, that the candidates appointed against the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, were to be arranged in the seniority list, not on the basis of the marks obtained in the process of selection, but according to the aggregate marks obtained by them, at the culmination of the training processes.
23. A perusal of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that when seniority is made dependent on marks obtained in examination to be conducted after the training. The seniority of all the candidates selected in a particular selection process will have to be decided on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the examinations, irrespective of the date of appointment.
24. These candidates were selected in a particular selection process 24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 cannot be split into different batches for the purposes of fixation of seniority. When large recruitments takes place for a large force like the Police Force, it is humanly impossible to conduct training for all the candidates recruited in one selection process at the same time as necessary infrastructure may not be available. Therefore, it becomes imperative that the candidates are divided into batches and sent for training. The delay in training by itself cannot affect the seniority of the candidates, who were selected in the same selection process.
25. Similarly, where some of the candidates selected do not join and a wait list or a reserve list is operated and those vacancies are filled up by the candidates in the reserved list or the wait list, there is bound to be certain delay and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.Raghu vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 221, had specifically dealt with such situation and has held that dehors such delay, the seniority of the candidates will be determined only by the marks obtained in the examinations conducted after the training in view of the specific rules. We must, at this juncture, point out that proviso to Rule 25 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024
(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, is in pari materia with Rule 15(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules. 1959.
26. In the cases on hand either there was an erroneous rejection of the candidature of the appellants or there was a delay in conducting the medical test. The candidates were not responsible in both the cases. Therefore, they cannot be affected by such delay. Once they clear the process of selection and orders of appointment are issued and they are sent for training, the marks secured by them in the examination conducted after training would be the basis for fixation of seniority. Therefore, all the appellants would be entitled to the seniority as per the marks obtained by them in the examination conducted after completion of the training in the Police Training College, dehors the dates of appointment.
27. No doubt the learned Single Judge had non-suited the appellants on the ground of delay. Such non-suiting on the ground of delay may not be justified, inasmuch as the issue relating to the seniority itself was settled by 26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 this Court only in the year 2023, when Writ Appeal No.1448 of 2018 was disposed of by this Court. Therefore, the very seniority of the candidates, who were selected in the year 1999-2000 batch was determined only after the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1448 of 2018, by that time, the Writ court had chosen to dispose of the Writ Petition even on 25.07.2023, even before the issue was settled. Therefore, the question of unsettling a settled seniority list will not arise.
28. We are therefore unable to sustain the orders of the writ court, the Writ Appeals will stand allowed, the Writ Petitions in WP Nos. 4816, 4810, 4817, 4812, 4807, 4809, 4808 and 4815 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.4876 of 2015 dated 22.08.2022 and WP No.4877 of 2015 dated 22.08.2022, will stand allowed.
29. There will be a direction to the respondents to re-fix the seniority of the appellants on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the examination conducted by the Police Training College, after the completion of training, in terms of the proviso to Rule 25 (a) of the Special Rules for 27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service 1959, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
24.04.2025
jv
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Home (Police) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Police Head Quarters,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (TS), 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 Technical Services, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.Nos.1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
jv W.A.Nos. 1985, 1986, 2172, 2173, 2176, 2177, 2181, 2184, 2185 and 2186 of 2024 24.04.2025 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )