Madras High Court
S.Sai Kumar vs The Director General Of Police on 10 February, 2021
W.P. No.2819 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 10.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P. No.2819 of 2021
S.Sai Kumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Director General of police,
Tamil Nadu Police Department,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
E.V.K.Sampath Road,
Vepery, Periamet,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this
Court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to fix the petitioner's
seniority on par with his batch mates recruited in the year 2010-2011 based on his
representation dated 04.01.2021 made through courier service and in the light of the
proceedings passed by 1st respondent in C.NO.3362/Rect 1(2)/2016, dated 11.11.2016
within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : M/S.Kavya
for Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.R.V.Selvakumar, A.G.P.
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.2819 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, to direct the 1 st respondent to
fix the petitioner's seniority on par with his batch mates recruited in the year 2010-2011
based on his representation dated 04.01.2021 made through courier service and in the
light of the proceedings passed by 1st respondent in C.NO.3362/Rect 1(2)/2016, dated
11.11.2016 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was selected for appointment to
the post of Grade II Police Constable in the year 2010 itself, he was not allowed to go
training for the period of 8 months only in the year 2018, on account of the fact that he
was facing criminal proceedings at the relevant point of time and after getting the order
of Hon'ble Acquittal, he was allowed to work. It is the further case of the petitioner that
he made a representation on 04.01.2020 to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider
inclusion of his name as one of the appointees in the year 2010 and grant relief.
3. Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that when a criminal case is pending, the question of allowing
the petitioner to join work does not arise and had the petitioner been in service, he
would have been suspended, on the ground of pendency of criminal case. He also co
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.2819 of 2021
contended that since the petitioner had joined service in the year 2018, he cannot claim
benefits, as if he joined the service in the year 2010, by way of disposal of the
representation.
4. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
5. Admittedly, he was found eligible to the post of Grade II Police Constable in the
year 2010 itself and due to his involvement in the criminal case, his training period was
postponed. It is not in dispute that he was acquitted from the criminal case honorably
and was sent for training for the period of 8 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner
drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.25132
of 2018 dated 03.01.2019, wherein it was clearly held that delay in appointment cannot
be attributed to the petitioner, as it occurred on account of the wrong rejection of the
candidature by the appointing authority.
6. In the present case on hand, the petitioner, though selected to the post, was
not given appointment, on the ground of pendency of criminal case. Once the criminal
case ended in acquittal and the respondents also appointed the petitioner in service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.2819 of 2021
wayback in the year2018, naturally the benefits of his service right from the year 2010
need to be extended to the petitioner, which cannot be deprived at any cost.
7. Hence I am of the view that the case of the petitioner needs to be considered
in the light of the judgment made in W.P.(MD) No.25132 of 2018 dated 03.01.2019.
Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in
terms of the aforesaid judgment, if applicable, within a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner either physically or virtually and the benefits, if any, shall be extended to him,
by taking into account the date of entry into service as 2010, instead of 2018.
8. With the above direction this Writ Petition is ordered. No costs.
10.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
jrs/ar
Note: Issue order copy on 16.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.2819 of 2021
To:
1. The Director General of police,
Tamil Nadu Police Department,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
E.V.K.Sampath Road,
Vepery, Periamet,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.2819 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.,
jrs/ar
W.P.No.2819 of 2021
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
