Madras High Court
Mr.Prabaharan.S vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 16 April, 2025
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar, C.Saravanan
2025:MHC:1009
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 24.02.2025
Pronounced on 16.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023 and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos.23526, 23527, 24418, 24421, 25753, 25756,
25762, 27609, 27610 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.14525 of 2024
W.A.No.2824 of 2023
Mr.Prabaharan.S,
S/o.Subramanian ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.A.V.Sophia,
D/o.A.Vadivelu
4.K.Porkodi,
D/o.Raman
1/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
5.S.Karpagavalli,
W/o.Ganeshmoorthy
6.B.Elanchezhian,
S/o.A.Backiyaraj
7.S.Vasanth Raja,
S/o.S.Sethuraj
8.R.Kasthuri,
D/o.K.P.Raj
9.G.Kamal,
S/o.T.Gandhi
10.S.Valarmathi,
W/o.P.Palanivelmurugan
11.S.Ganesan,
S/o.Sudalaimuthu
12.K.Baskaran,
S/o.T.Karunanithi
13.R.Rajeev,
S/o.Rajendran
14.T.Rose Mary
Respondents 6 to 14 are impleaded vide
Order dated 03.07.2024 made in C.M.P.
No.9915 of 2024 in W.A.No.2824 of 2023) ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated
20.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.2262 of 2023 along with a batch of similar writ
petitions.
2/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
For Appellant : Ms.Anandhi
For Respondents :
For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
For R3 to R5 : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Ms.S.Suneetha
W.A.No.2937 of 2023
Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy,
S/o.S.Sakarai ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated
20.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.23294 of 2022 along with a batch of similar writ
petitions.
3/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.R.Ganeshkumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
W.A.No.3094 of 2023
1.G.Gnanasekar,
S/o.Gunasekar
2.P.Ezhildasan,
S/o.P.Pakkiri
3.G.Gopal,
S/o.Ganesan
4.R.Thirumal,
S/o.Ramanujam
5.S.Akilan,
S/o.Subramaniyan
6.Senbagavalli,
D/o.Subramanian
7.B.Jamees Babu,
S/o.Babu
8.T.Rajakumari,
W/o.Thanasekaran
9.K.Ganapathy,
S/o.Krishnamurthy ... Appellants
4/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.P.Tamilselvi
4.A.Potta
5.D.Valli
6.V.Thiripurasundari
7.G.Thiruselvam
8.R.Jayanthi
9.V.Vembu
10.R.Valli,
W/o.R.Baskaran
11.P.Mailammal,
W/o.N.Ramesh
12.R.Kuzhali,
D/o.Raman
13.A.V.Sophia,
D/o.A.Vadivelu
5/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
14.K.Porkodi,
D/o.Raman
15.S.Karpagavalli,
W/o.Ganeshmoorthy
16.P.M.Jayanthi,
W/o.D.Venugopal
17.P.Thirumaladevi,
C/o.Nithyanandham
18.R.A.Vijayalakshmi,
W/o.A.Eruthaya Raj
19.K.Kalaiselvi,
W/o.T.Chandrasekar
20.P.Thenmozhi,
W/o.R.S.Ravikumar
21.K.Janaki,
W/o.Thangavel
22.S.Indiara
23.M.C.Kavithadevi,
W/o.Rajendran
24.Geetha,
W/o.S.M.Nedunchezhiyan
25.N.Mangalam,
W/o.G.Thandapani
26.S.M.Janse Rani,
W/o.T.Madhavan
6/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
27.V.Sasikala,
W/o.Devaranjan
28.N.Uma,
W/o.Ayyachami
29.R.Padmavathi,
W/o.Annamalai
30.M.Tamilselvi,
W/o.Thukkamuthu
31.Mrs.D.Renuga Devi,
W/o.K.Velayutham
32.Mrs.P.Kalaiselvi,
W/o.R.Balakrishnan
33.Mrs.Y.Aurockiya Gnancy Rubal,
W/o.Halwin
34.Mrs.Y.Mehaboob Jan,
W/o.Hayath Basha
35.Mrs.Latha,
W/o.Tamilarasan
36.Mrs.Lurdu Mary,
W/o.Ananthakumar
37.Mrs.P.Revathy,
W/o.Sunderrajan
38.Mrs.Angayarkanni,
W/o.P.A.P.Rathinam
39.Mrs.P.S.Vijaya
7/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
40.Mrs.R.Shanthi
41.Mrs.Mallika,
W/o.Late Balaji
42.Mrs.P.Shaila,
W/o.Satheesan
43.Mrs.U.Porkodi,
W/o.Jude
44.Mrs.Uma,
W/o.A.R.Singaravelu
45.Mrs.Poovarasi,
W/o.Govindaraj
46.Mrs.Thannila,
W/o.Everest
47.Mrs.Girija,
W/o.Jaganathan
48.Mrs.Rajeswari,
W/o.Ganeshamoorthi
49.Mrs.Lakshmi,
W/o.M.Venkatesan ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated
20.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.20894 of 2022 along with a batch of similar writ
petitions.
8/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
For Appellants : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Mahesh Kumar.S
For Respondents :
For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
For R3 to R9 : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For R46, R11 and
R49 : Mr.S.Senthilkumar
For R10, R12, R34,
R48 : Mr.K.Anantharaja
for M/s.Murali Law Firm
W.A.No.3381 of 2023
1.S.Mani,
S/o.Sankaralingam
2.S.Lokeshwaran,
S/o.Sampath
3.S.Madhan Kumar,
S/o.Sundaram
4.Surendiran,
S/o.Devasaran
5.S.Mahalingam,
S/o.Sundaram
6.N.Rakkikumari,
W/o.Kumaresan
9/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
7.K.Kumar,
S/o.Kittappa
8.G.Thulasi,
S/o.Gopal
9.Dhanraj,
S/o.Chandrababu
10.Sathish,
S/o.Loganathan
11.Suresh,
S/o.Jothy
12.P.Seethapathi,
S/o.Perumal
13.D.Krishnamoorthy,
S/o.V.Deivanayagam
14.P.Manickaraja,
S/o.Punniyamurthy
15.Suresh Babu,
S/o.Jayachandran
16.Shabutheen
17.V.Manikanda Ganesh,
S/o.Vijayakumar ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
10/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated
20.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.23286 of 2022 along with a batch of similar writ
petitions.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
W.A.No.2045 of 2024
1.C.Murali,
S/o.N.Chandramohan
2.V.Prathap Chandran,
S/o.D.Vijayan
3.J.Sankar,
S/o.A.Jayapal
4.M.Muthukumar,
S/o.L.Masilamani ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
11/85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated
20.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.27030 of 2022 along with a batch of similar writ
petitions.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.M.Vignesh Raj
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.)
This Intra Court Appeal is preferred against the Impugned Common Order
dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Writ Court in a batch of Writ Petitions as
detailed below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Table-1
Sl. Writ Appeal No. Writ Petition No.
No. (2) (3)
1 2824 of 2023 2262 of 2023
2 2937 of 2023 23294 of 2022
3 3094 of 2023 20894 of 2022
4 3381 of 2023 23286 of 2022
5 2045 of 2024 27030 of 2022
2. The Appellants had filed the following Writ Petitions for the following
relief. The relief sought for in these Writ Petitions read as under:-
Table-2
Prayer in W.P.Nos.23294, Prayer in W.P.No.2262 of
20894, 23286 and 27030 of 2023
Writ Petitions filed under Writ Petition filed under Article
Article 226 of the Constitution 226 of the Constitution of India
of India to issue a Writ of to issue a Writ of Certiorari to
Certiorari to call for the records call for the records of the
of the Impugned Memorandum impugned order dated
dated 18.09.2017 bearing 25.02.2011 bearing G.O. Ms.
RC.No.146633/NGB V(1)/2017 No. 152, Home (Police-III)
issued by the 2nd Respondent Department issued by the 1st
and quash the same. Respondent and also call for the
records in Impugned Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Prayer in W.P.Nos.23294, Prayer in W.P.No.2262 of
20894, 23286 and 27030 of 2023
Memorandum dated 18.09.2017
bearing RC.No.146633/NGB
IV(1)/2017 issued by the 2nd
Respondent and quash the
same.
3. By the Impugned Common Order dated 14.10.2022, the Writ Court has
dismissed the above Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants/Writ Petitioners with
the following observations:-
“14. No doubt, in the qualification aspect the Full Court has held
that when the benefit is conferred, the requirements to get
such a benefit must be satisfied. There is no scope for a
deemed satisfaction and what is expected is that the actual
satisfaction of the requirements and completed the fixed
period of overall service is required to make the benefit. This
judgment has been delivered on 04.02.2022. However, the
seniority orders have been in the year 2016. Based on that,
seniority many of them have benefitted based on the
Government Orders referred above. In such a view of the
matter, this Court is of the view that settled things cannot be
unsettled after lapse of many years. Therefore, this court is of
the view that these Writ Petitions are certainly not
maintainable on the ground of delay and laches.
15. The many Government Orders referred in the Impugned
Orders have not been challenged. These writ petitions came
to be filed only after the Full Bench have authoritatively
declared the relevant qualification. Therefore,without
challenging all the relevant Government Orders by
impleading all other beneficiaries under the above order this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Court is of the view that at this stage, the seniority issue
cannot be reopened.
16. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
4. While dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants/Writ
Petitioners vide Impugned Common Order dated 20.09.2023, the Writ Court
upheld that contentions of the Official Respondents and the Private
Respondents who were recruited/appointed as ‘Women Police Constables
(WPC)’ in the year 1990-1991 under the Ad hoc Rules.
5. Their names were earlier included for promotion in ‘C’ List of ‘Head
Constables’ with retrospective effect from the year 1999 who were fit for
promotion to the post of ‘Inspector of Police’ for the panel year 2010 in terms
of the Impugned Memorandum after they were designated as ‘Special Sub
Inspector of Police(SSI)’ in terms of Impugned Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011.
6. The Writ Court ultimately upheld the contention of the Respondents
that the Appellants/Writ Petitioners who were recruited directly as ‘Sub-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Inspector of Police’ in the year 2011 were juniors to the Private
Respondents/Women Police Constables (WPC) recruited in the year 1990-1991.
The names of the Appellants/Writ Petitioners were therefore to be placed below
them.
7. While passing the Impugned Common Order, the Writ Court referred
to the decision of the full Bench of this Court in “The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai and others Vs.
C.Srinivasan” in a batch of Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions which dealt with
validity of Government Orders prevailing then with regard to upgradation and
promotion of the Police personnel who had served long period of service
without promotion.
DECISION OF THE FULL-BENCH JUDGMENT
8. A reference was made to the Full Bench in view of a perceived
conflicting views between two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court
rendered on 22.03.2017 in Review Application Nos.70 to 79 of 2015 etc.,
batch in “The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Home Secretary
Vs.V.Ramachandran” (hereinafter referred to as V.Ramachandran's case)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this
High Court rendered on 17.06.2013 in “The Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by Home Secretary Vs. V.Samy” (hereinafter referred to as
V.Samy's case) in W.A (MD) No.1506 of 2011 etc., batch.
9. The Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in V.Samy's
case (cited supra), had held as under:-
“4. From the above Government Orders, it is evident that
actual service of five years as Head Constable is not
required for giving upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector
of Police as they have been deemed to be promoted for the
respective cadre of Head Constable on completion of five
years as Grade-I PC (deemed upgradation) and ten years
of service as Head Constable from the date of deemed
upgradation as Head Constables, provided 25 years of
total service is available. The said Government Orders
were also extended to several persons similarly placed
and batch of cases were allowed by applying the said
Government Orders. The only contention raised by
learned Special Government Pleader in these writ appeals
are even if the seniority of the police constable should be
counted from the date of appointment, irrespective of the
transfer to other Wing or District, one has to complete five
years of service as Head Constable for getting promotion
as Special Sub-Inspector of Police. The Government
Order nowhere states that actual five years service in the
cadre of Head Constable is mandatory.
5. It is not in dispute that similarly placed persons were
already given the benefit of promotion as Special Sub-
Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of total
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
service, considering deemed upgradation of their posts
and several persons retired from service were also given
benefits, including revision of salary and pensionary
benefits.
6….”
10. In V.Ramachandran's case (cited supra), the Division Bench of this
Court held as under:-
“31. In the facts and circumstances of the present case in the
light of the Government Orders operating the field and
materials placed before us by the learned Special
Government Pleader, we are of the categorical view that
the writ petitioners cannot claim deemed promotion to the
post of Special Sub Inspector of Police and the attendant
service and monetary benefits. We, therefore, left with no
other option but to respectfully disagree with the decision
rendered by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in
similar batch of writ petitions.
32. We wish to point out that we passed the common order
dated 23.04.2015 in W.A. (MD) No. 348 to 357 of 2015
batch of cases on the submission made by the learned
counsel that the issue involved is covered by the earlier
Division Bench decision dated 17.06.2013 made in
WA.(MD) No. 1506 of 2011. The niceties of the legal
issues and the real import and purport of the Government
Orders were omitted to be brought to our notice. We
reiterate that it was only on the ground and in this manner
that several Police Constables, most them retired from
service long back, reaped monetary benefits that was not
legitimately due to them under the Government Orders
concerned. In such circumstances, we cannot blindfold
ourselves by the earlier Division Bench decision to allow
the claim of the present writ petitioners. We are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
thoroughly convinced in the facts and circumstances of the
case that the Government has made out sustainable
ground for reviewing our earlier common order dated
23.04.2015 in WA (MD) No. 348 to 357 of 2015.”
11. In view of the above two decisions of the Division Bench of this
Court, the Full Bench of this Court was constituted to answer the reference and
rendered its decision in C.Srinivasan's case (cited supra). In C.Srinivasan's
case (cited supra), the Full Bench observed as under:-
“32. The above judgement in V.Ramachandran case is in
conflict with the earlier judgement of the Division Bench in
V.Samy case mainly on three aspects and they are:
(a) The Government order does not have any
retrospective effect
(b) The Government order never intended to grant any
deemed promotion or deemed upgradation and
(c) to claim for upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of
Police, 10 years of service in the rank of Head
Constable is mandatory.”
12. The Full Bench ultimately held that the views of the decision of the
Division Bench rendered in V.Samy's case (cited supra) did not rightly lay
down the correct position of law.
13. Thus, it held that the later view of the Division Bench in
V.Ramachandran's case (cited supra) laid down the correct position of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Relevant portion from the decision of the Full Bench in C.Srinivasan's case
(cited supra) is extracted below:-
“42. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to answer
the second question that has been referred to this Full
Bench hereunder:-
“We hold that the Division Bench in V.Samy
case did not lay down the law correctly and
we uphold the law laid down in
V.Ramachandran case to the extent that there
is no deemed upgradation or deemed
promotion contemplated in the relevant
Government orders and the benefit of
upgradation/promotion to the next level can
be granted/claimed only on completion of the
qualifying service in each level/rank as
prescribed in the relevant Government
Orders. At the risk of repetition, insofar as
understanding the expression “retrospective
operation” is concerned, we hold that the
Government Orders operate prospectively
but it imposes/grants new results in respect
of a past event. In other words, the
Government Order operates forward but it
looks backward and in that it attaches new
consequences for the future to an event that
took place before the Government Order was
issued. If the Government Orders are
understood in the perspective, there is no
need to get into the issue of “retrospective
operation. Thus, we are of the view that the
Division Bench while rendering the
judgement in V.Ramachandran Case has
dealt with Government orders in its proper
perspective and the judgement in V.Samy
case is hereby overruled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
43. The answers given by us for both the questions referred
to the Full Bench, shall form the basis for deciding these
batch of Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions. The Registry is
directed to post the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals
before the concerned portfolio Bench”.
14. The Government Orders which fell for consideration before the Full
Bench in the aforesaid case are as under:-
Table-3
Date Government Order Action/Scheme
12.10.1992 G.O.Ms.No.1681, Home Government Upgraded
(Pol.V) Department 1. 21,000 of Grade II Men
Police Constable to
Grade I Men Police
Constable and
2. 4000 of Grade I Men
Police Constable as
'Head Constables'
From 1992-1993 Batch
24.12.1992 G.O.Ms.No.2107, Home Government relaxed the test
(Pol.V) Department qualification for Grade II
Men Police Constables for
1992-1993 Batch
18.07.1994 G.O.Ms.No.807, Home Government relaxed the test
(Pol.V) Department qualification for all Grade II
Police Men Constables
21.07.1995 G.O.Ms.No.1101, Home Government relaxed the
(Pol.V) Department educational qualification for
Grade II Police Constables
03.06.1997 G.O.Ms.No.844, Home Upgradation Scheme up to
(Pol.V) Department the rank of 'Head Constable'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Date Government Order Action/Scheme
for 1997-1998 up to 2000-
2001 batches;
Grade II Police Constable
working for 10 years was
promoted to Grade I Police
Constable and Grade I Police
Constable working for 5
years promoted as 'HC'.
21.07.1998 G.O.Ms.No.937, Home Government creates the post
(Pol.V) Department of 'Special Sub-Inspector of
Police' which is an
Upgradation and not a
promotional post)
Police Constables who have
put 25 years of Service and
in that 10 years as 'Head
Constable' were entitled to
upgradation for 'SSI'.
06.01.2010 G.O.Ms.No.13, Home The upgradation of Grade II
(Pol.V) Department Police Constable who were
appointed on 01.11.1984 to
the post of Grade I Police
Constable was advanced to
25.07.1995 and as 'Head
Constable' to 25.07.2000.
01.01.2010 G.O.Ms.No.15, Home Government delegated
(Pol.V) Department powers to SP/Commissioner
to upgrade:-
Grade II Police Constable on
completion of 10 years as
Grade I Police Constable;
Grade I Police Constable on
completion of 5 years as
'Head Constable'; and
Head Constable on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Date Government Order Action/Scheme
completion of 10 years as
'Special Sub Inspector of
Police'.
CONSEQUENCE FLOWING FROM THE DECISION OF THE FULL
BENCH
15. The consequence flowing from the above decision of the Full Bench
of this Court in C.Srinivasan's case (cited supra) is that a police personnel
recruited as a Grade II Police Constable should have completed 10 years as a
‘Grade II Police Constable’; 5 years as a ‘Grade I Police Constable’ and 10
years as a ‘Head Constable’ before such a police personnel was eligible for
upgradation to the post of ‘Special Sub-Inspector of Police’ in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998.
16. In absence of such duration of service, such police personnel will be
neither eligible for upgradation/designation as a ‘Special Sub-Inspector of
Police (SSI)’ nor be eligible to be promoted to the next higher post of ‘Inspector
of Police’.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
17. The decisions of the Division Bench of this Court referred to supra
and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court have however, failed to note
that there is a fine distinction between ‘upgradation’ and ‘promotion’.
18. The ‘upgradation’ is merely a re-designation for the purpose of
conferring certain monetary/pecuniary benefits to those police personnels who
had put in more than 25 years of service and were stagnating in the same post in
the absence of vacancy for promotion to the next higher post.
19. The above mentioned Government Orders and the impugned
G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011 has been
issued in the light of a policy decision of the Government and in the backdrop
of the announcement made by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State
before the State Assembly Meeting (Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Meeting) held on 25.05.1998.
20. To implement the policy decision of the State Government pursuant
to the aforesaid announcement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, initially
G.O.(Ms) No.937, Home (Pol.III) Department dated 21.07.1998 was issued.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
The aforesaid Government Order makes it clear that the Police Constables who
had served for a predominantly long period of 25 years and in that 10 years as
'Head Constables' were entitled to be designated as 'Special Sub-Inspector of
Police', and they would be given monetary benefits as that of 'Sub-Inspector of
Police'.
21. It will be therefore useful to refer to the text of G.O.Ms.No.937,
Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998. Text of G.O.Ms.No.937, Home
(Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998 is reproduced below:-
“1998?Mk; Mz;L nk jp';fs; 25–k; ehsd;W rl;lkd;wg;
nguitapy; 1998 – 99?Mk; Mz;Lf;fhd fhty;Jiw khdpa
nfhhpf;if kPjhd tpthjj;jpw;Fg; gjpy; mspf;ifapy;
khz;g[kpF Kjyikr;rh; mth;fs; 10 Mz;Lfs;
jiyikf;fhtyh;fshfg; gzp Koj;jth;fSf;F rpwg;g[ cjtp
Mz;thsh; gjtp cah;t[ mspj;J mth;fSf;F cjtp
Ma;thsh;fSf;F ,izahd rk;gsk; tH';fg;gLk; vd;W
mwptpj;jhh;fs;/ ,e;j mwptpg;g[f;fpz';f fhty;Jiw jiyik
,af;Feh; xU braw;Fwpg;ig muRf;F mDg;gp itj;Js;shh;/
2/ fhty;Jiwapy; tl;lf;fhty; (jhYf;fh). Ma[jg;gil
kw;Wk; jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[f; fhty;gil Mfpa KPdW
; gphpt[fspy;
Vw;gLk; cjtp Ma;thsh; gjtpapl';fs; nehpilj; njh;t[
K:yKk;. jiyikf; fhtyh;fspypUe;J gjtp cah;t[ bgWgtu;fs;
K:yKk; Kiwna 60 : 40 vd;w tpfpjj;jpy; epug;gg;gLfpd;wd/
jiyikf;fhtyh;fs; cjtp Ma;thsuhfg; gjtp cah;t[
bgWtjw;F elj;jg;gLk; gjtp cah;t[j; njh;t[ rpy eph;thff;
fhuz';fspdhy; 1985 Kjy; 1996 tiu eilbgwtpy;iy/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
jtpu Ma[jg;gil kw;Wk; jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[f; fhty; gilg;
gphptpy; gzpg[hpa[k; fhtyh;fs; kw;Wk; jiyikf;fhtyh;fs; gjtp
cah;t[ bgWtjpy; jhkjk; Vw;gLfpwJ/ vdnt nkw;Twpa
K:dW ; gphpt[fspy; fhtyh;fshf bkhj;jk; 25 Mz;Lfs; gzp
Koj;jth;fSf;Fk;. ,jpy; jiyikf;fhtyh; kw;Wk;
cwtpy;jhh;fs; gjtpfspy; 10 Mz;Lfs; gzp
Koj;jth;fSf;Fk; rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsh; gjtp cah;t[
tH';fyhk; vd fhty;Jiw jiyik ,af;Feh; ghpe;Jiu
bra;Js;shh;/
3/ fhty;Jiw jiyik ,af;Fehpd; nkw;go
ghpe;Jiuia muR tphpthfg; ghprPyid bra;jJ/
fhtyh;fSf;fpilna gjtp cah;t[ fpilg;gjpy; Vw;gLfpd;w
fhyjhkjj;ijg; nghf;Ftjw;bfd rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsh;
vd;w gjtp cah;tpid mspf;fyhk; vd muR Kot[
bra;Js;sJ/ ,jd;go 01/06/1973 md;W my;yJ mjw;F
Kd;dh; fhty;Jiwapy;. gj;jp 2?y; Fwpg;gpl;l K:dW; gphpt[fspy;
fhtyh;fshfg; gzpapy; nrh;e;J 25 Mz;Lfs; gzpKoj;J.
mjpy; 10 Mz;Lfs; jiyikf; fhtyh;fshfg;
gzpg[hpe;jth;fSf;F fPH;f;fz;l epge;jidf;Fl;gl;L rpwg;g[
cjtp Ma;thsh; gjtp cah;t[ mspf;f muR MizapLfpwJ:-
(m) ,th;fs; gjtp cah;t[ bgWtjw;F Kd;dh; cs;s 5
Mz;Lfspy; jz;lid VJk; bgw;wpUf;ff;RlhJ;
(M) jz;lid tpjpfspy; gphpt[ 3(gp)?d;fPH;
Fw;wr;rhl;nlh my;yJ fphpkpdy; tHf;nfh ,th;fspd;; kPJ
vJt[k; epYitapy; ,Uf;ff; TlhJ;
(,) gjtp cah;t[ mspg;gJ kw;Wk; njh;t[gg; l;oay;
jahhpg;gJ rk;ge;jkhf muR 18/10/1993 ehspll; gzpahsh;
kw;Wk; eph;thf rPh;jpUj;jj;Jiw Miz vz;/368?y;
tFj;Js;s tpjpKiwfspd;go ,th;fs; jFjp bgw;wpUf;f
ntz;Lk;/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
(nkw;fz;l gj;jp 3 muR fojk; vz;/72334/fhty;/5/98-
5. cs;Jiw. Ehs; 08/10/1998 K:yk; nrh;f;fg;gl;lJ)
4/nkw;go rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsh; gjtp. gzpK:g;gpd;
mog;gilapy; thyhakhfg; bgwg;gLk; (Regular promotion on
seniority basis --------) fhty; cjtp Ma;thsh; gjtpapy;
,Ue;J Kw;wpYk; khWgLk; gzp tpjpfspd;go ,e;j rpwg;g[
cjtp Ma;thsh; gjtp xU gjtp cah;t[ MfhJ/ ,J xU
rpwg;g[r; rYif kl;Lnk/ nkny gj;jp 3?y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sthW
01/06/1973 my;yJ mjw;F Kd;dh; fhty;Jiwapy;. gj;jp 2?y;
Fwpg;gpl;l K:dW ; gphpt[fspy; fhtyh;fshfg; gzpapy; nrh;e;J
25 Mz;Lfs; gzp Koe;J mjpy; 10 Mz;Lfs; jiyikf;
fhtyh;fshfg; gzpg[hpe;jth;fSf;F kl;Lnk ,e;j rpwg;g[r;
rYif tH';fg;gLk;/ ,jpy; ve;j epge;jidfSf;Fk;
tpjptpyf;F mspf;fg;glkhl;lhJ/
(nkw;fz;l gj;jp 4 muR fojk; vz;/72334/fhty;/3/98-
5. cs;Jiw. ehs; 08/10/1998 K:yk; nrh;f;fg;gl;lJ)
5/ rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsh;fshfg; gjtp cah;t[
mspg;gjw;Ff; fPH;fz;l eilKiwfisg; gpd;gw;w ntz;Lbkd
muR MizapLfpwJ:-
(m) ,e;j g[jpa gjtp cah;t[ mspg;gjwfhd
njh;t[g;gl;oay; jahhpg;gjw;F Xt;bthU Mz;Lk; $%d; khjk;
Kjy; ehs; Fwpg;gpl;l ehshf (crucial date) eph;zak;
bra;ag;gLfpwJ;
(M) ,e;j g[jpa gjtpf;F cah;j;jg;gl;lth;fs; cjtp
Ma;thsh;fSf;F ,izahd Cjpak; kw;Wk; ,ju gofs;
bgwj; jFjpa[ilatuhfpd;wdh;/
(,) ,e;j g[jpa gjtpf;F xt;bthU Mz;Lk; $%d;
jp';fs; Kjy; ehsd;W gj;jp 2?y; Fwpg;gpl;l K:dW
; gphpt[fspy;
gzpg[hpa[k; jFjpa[ila fhtyh;fs;-jiyikf;fhtyh;fs;-
cwtpy;jhh;fs; gl;oaiy rk;ge;jg;gl;l ruf fhty;Jiw
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Jizj;jiyth;-fhtyh; Mizah;-ruf fhty;Jiw
Jizj;jiyth; (nrkg;gil) jiyikapy; cs;s ruf gjtp
cah;t[f;FG (Range Promotion Board) To jahhpj;J jkJ
ghpe;Jiua[ld; fhty;Jiw jiyik ,af;FeUf;F mDg;gp
itf;Fk;/ ,e;j gl;oaiy jkJ ghpe;Jiua[ld; fhty;Jiw
jiyik ,af;Feh; muRf;F mDg;gp itg;ghh;/ ,jd;
mog;gilapy; jFjpa[ilath;fSf;Fg; gjtp cah;t[ mspj;J
muR xt;bthU Mz;Lk; $%iy jp';fspy; Miz gpwg;gpf;Fk;/
(<) ,e;j rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsh;fs; Mw;w ntz;oa
gzpfisf; fhty;Jiw jiyik ,af;Feh; eph;zak; bra;thh;/
(c) ,e;j rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsh;fs; cjtp Ma;thsh;
gjtpf;Fj; njh;t[ bgWtjw;fhd njh;tpy; njh;r;rp bgw;w
gpd;dnu cjtp Ma;thsuhfg; gjtp cah;t[ bgWth;/ ,e;j
gjtp cah;t[ bgWk;tiu rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsh; gjtpapnyna
bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpth;/ rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsh; gzpapypUe;J
cjtp Ma;thsuhfg; gjtp cah;t[ bgw;wgpd;g[ rpwg;g[ cjtp
Ma;thsh; gjtpfs; fhyhtjpahfptpLk;/
6/ ,t;thizapd;go gjtp cah;t[ bgWk; fhtyh;fs;.
jiyikf;fhtyh;fs;-cwtpy;jhh;fs; njh;t[g;gl;oaiy nkny
gj;jpfs; 4 kw;Wk; 5?y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s eilKiwg;go xt;bthU
Mz;Lk; $%iy jp';fspy; muRf;F xg;g[jYf;fhf mDg;gp
itf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W fhty;Jiw jiyik ,af;Feh;
nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;/”
22. Monetary incentives were conferred by re-designating a ‘Head
Constable’ as a ‘Special Sub-Inspector of Police’. It was similar to selection
grades and special grades conferred on government servants for having served
in the lower post for 10 years and 20 years respectively without promotion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
23. The purpose of upgradation/redesignation was merely intended to
boost the morale of the police force as there was no scope for promoting a large
number of serving ‘Head Constables’ who had served a long period of service
since their entry into the police service in the absence of vacancy for promotion
to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’.
24. It was perceived that many such long serving ‘Head Constables’ were
retiring without any promotion. Therefore, to boost the morale of the police
force, designation was being conferred to those ‘Head Constables’ as ‘Special
Sub-Inspector of Police’ who had joined as entry level ‘Grade II Police
Constable’ for having served at least 25 years of service out of which 10 years
as ‘Head Constables’.
25. This aspect has to be kept in mind as to why G.O.Ms.No.937, Home
(Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998 was issued. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.937,
Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998 is the pre-cursor to
G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011 impugned
before the Writ Court in W.P.No.2262 of 2023 pursuant to which the Impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing RC.No.146633/NGB V(1)/2017 was
issued by the 2nd Respondent.
CASE OF THE APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS
26. The Appellants/Writ Petitioners were directly recruited in the year
2011 on 01.02.2011 as ‘Sub-Inspectors of Police’. The Appellants/Writ
Petitioners had challenged G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department
dated 25.02.2011 issued by the 1st Respondent and the Impugned
Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing RC.No.146633/NGB V(1)/2017
issued by the 2nd Respondent.
27. The Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.2262 of 2023 wanted to quash both
G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011 and
Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing RC.No.146633/NGB V(1)/2017
impugned in all the above mentioned Writ Petitions which was issued by the
2nd Respondent pursuant to the aforesaid Impugned Government Order.
28. G.O.(Ms) No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011
issued by the 1st Respondent ordered upgradation of 1990-1991 batch ‘Women
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Police Constables (WPC)’ (who have been wrongly referred to as ‘Grade-1
Women Police Constables’) as ‘Special Sub-Inspectors of Police (SSI)’ with
effect from 01.01.2009.
29. The Private Respondents were recruited in 1991 batch ‘Women
Police Constable’ under the Adhoc Rules. They were promoted as ‘Head
Constable’ with retrospective effect from 01/1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.63, Home
(Pol.V) Department dated 21.01.2003.
30. Later, these Private Respondents were upgraded as ‘Special Sub-
Inspector of Police (SSI)’ with effect from 2009 vide Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011 impugned
in W.P.No.2262 of 2023.
31. Thus, dispute has arisen on account of seniority being conferred on
the Private Respondents (recruited as Women Police Constables (WPC) in the
year 1990-1991) in 'B' List over the Appellants/Writ Petitioners, who were
directly recruited as 'Sub-Inspectors of Police' in the year 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
32. The Appellants/Writ Petitioners who were directly recruited as ‘Sub-
Inspector of Police’ in the year 2011 are thus aggrieved as they lost their
seniority as retrospective seniority were conferred to the Private Respondents
who were recruited as ‘Women Police Constables (WPC)’ in the year 1991
under the provisions of the Ad hoc Rules framed by the Government on
05.12.1973.
TEXT OF G.O.(Ms) No.152 DATED 25.02.2011
33. Relevant portion of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-
III) Department dated 25.02.2011 impugned in W.P.No.2262 of 2023 is
extracted hereunder:-
“ORDER:
In the G.O. fourth read above, orders have been issued
upgrading 34 Women Head Constables, who were
appointed as Grade I Constables in the year 1986, were
upgraded as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, as a special
case.
2. On the same analogy, 1990-1991 batch Grade I Women
Police Constables are frequently submitting
representations to upgrade them as Special Sub-
Inspectors of Police, as a special case, since they have
rendered a total service of 19 to 20 years in Police
Department. They further represented that they may also
be upgraded as Head Constables notionally with effect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
from 1/98 and after completion of 10 years of service as
Head Constables upgraded as Special Sub-Inspectors of
Police with effect from 1/2009, as a special case in order
to utilise their services for the vacant posts of Sub-
Inspectors of Police.
3. The Director General of Police has stated that for the
years 1990 and 1991, 441 Grade I Police
Constables/women Constables were recruited and they
were promoted as Head Constables only during the year
2003. They are now coming up with a request for
promotion on par with men. The men Grade I Police
Constables upto 31.12.1993, were given upgradation as
Head Constable in 1/98 and they were upgraded as
Special Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from
01.09.2008 as per G.O.Ms.No.180 home (Pol-3)
Department, dated 01.03.2009.
4. The Director General of Police has further added that the
same benefit given to the Men Police Constables, who
were upgraded as Grade I Police Constables upto
31.12.1993 and given Head Constable promotion
notionally with effect from 1/98, may be extended to
Women Grade I Police Constable (direct) appointed upto
31.12.1993. They could be upgraded as Head Constables
with effect from 1/98 notionally on par with Men Police
Constables. On completion of another 10 years of service,
the Women Head Constables may be given upgradation as
Special Sub-Inspectors of Police notionally with effect
from 01.09.2008 and they may be eligible for Monetary
Benefits from the date of Government Orders, as a one
time measure and treat is as a special case.
5. The Government after careful consideration of the
proposal of the Director General of Police, have decided
to upgrade the 1990-1991 batch Grade I Women Police
Constable with effect from 01/2009. Whereby they direct
that the 1990-1991 batch Grade I Women Police
Constables be upgraded as Special Sub-Inspectors of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Police, with effect from 01/2009 as a one time measure
and as a special case. Monetary benefits are to be given
from the date of issue the order.”
34. By the aforesaid Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing
RC.No.146633/NGB V(1)/2017 impugned in all the Writ Petitions, the names
of ‘Women Police Constables (WPC)’ recruited during the 1990-1991 batch
was advanced by a period of five years by giving them notional seniority
pursuant to the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department
dated 25.02.2011 impugned in W.P.No.2262 of 2023.
35. In the Impugned Memorandum dated 18.09.2017, names of the
Private Respondents, i.e., Women Police Constables recruited in the year 1990-
1991 were placed above the Appellants/Writ Petitioners (who were directly
recruited ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ in the 2011 batch) in ‘B’ List as persons fit
for promotion to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’.
TEXT OF MEMORANDUM DATED 18.09.2017
36. Relevant portion of the Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 impugned
in all the Writ Petitions is extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
“2) The Government in their order 1st cited had upgraded
the 441 direct Grade I WPCs were recruited for the year
1990-1991 as Women Head Constables.
3) With regard to further promotion as SSI, a proposal was
sent to Govt. on 27.04.2010 requesting to upgrade them
Women HCs notionally from 1/1999 and as Women SSIs
from 1/2009. For this, the Government in their order 2nd
cited had notionally upgraded the 1990-1991 batch
Grade I WPCs with effect from 01/2009 as a one time
measure and as a special case.
4) As such, I is constructed that their services were
reckoned as Women HCs from 1/1999 on completion of
10 years as HCs as per our proposal which is mandatory
for promotion as SSI. Hence, in Chief office
memorandum 3rd cited necessary instructions were
issued to all COPs, Dist SPs, including SRP, Chennai
and Trichy that to fix their seniority in the rank of HC
notionally w.e.f. 1/99.
5) Hence, Special Range Promotion Board was convened to
consider the name of 1990-1991 batch directly recruited
Women Grade I PCs, to include their name in the
respective year panel for promotion as SIs (Local) on
par with Men HCs who were upgraded during 01/1999.
After that, in Chief office memorandum 4th cited. 351
eligible Women SSIs were imparted the pre-promotional
training for a period of 9 weeks from 22.02.2016 to
23.04.2016 and three months practical training from
25.04.2016 and as per rule 18(e) of Special Rules for
TNPSS, their date of ‘B’ list has been declared w.e.f.
11.04.2016.
6) In order to advancement of date of “B” list to them, the
officers concerned are requested to modify the date of ‘B’
to the Women SIs (direct Gr I WPC 1990-1991 Batch)
whose names were included in the appropriate year ‘C’
list of HCs/SSIs(taluk) fit for promotion as SI as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Date of 'B' list as Women SIs (direct Date of 'B' list to
SI declared Gr I WPC 1990- be advanced
earlier (vide 1991 Batch) whose
Rc.No.31864/NG names were
B IV(1) 2015 included in the 'C'
dated list of HCs/SSIs
19.07.2016) (taluk) fit for
promotion as SI for
the year
11.04.2016 2010 26.01.2011
11.04.2016 2011 09.05.2012
11.04.2016 2012 10.09.2012
11.04.2016 2013 21.12.2013
11.04.2016 2014 02.02.2015
11.04.2016 2015 11.04.2015
NOTES ON HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR INDUCTION OF
WOMEN IN THE POLICE FORCE IN TAMIL NADU
37. As mentioned elsewhere, the women were recruited into the police
force in Tamil Nadu under Ad hoc Rules framed on 05.12.1973. As per the
Adhoc Rules framed on 05.12.1973, the post of ‘Grade I Women Police
Constable’ was a promotional post. There was no avenue for direct
appointment of Women as a ‘Grade I Women Police Constable’ through Direct
Recruitment. The method of appointment prescribed under the Ad hoc Rules
were as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Table-4
CATEGORY METHOD OF APPOINTMENT
Woman Sub Inspector (a) By Direct Recruitment;
(b) By Recruitment by transfer from
any other service;
(c) By promotion from the holders
of the post of Women Head
Constables.
Provided that promotion shall not
be more than 30% of the cadre
(G.O.Ms.No.2276, Home (Pol.III)
Department dated 26.09.1981)
Woman Head Constable By promotion from the category of
Women Police Constables Grade I
Woman Police Constable Grade I By promotion from the category of
Women Police Constables Grade II
Women Police Constables Grade II By direct recruitment
38. The Adhoc Rules was later modified by G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home
Department dated 01.11.1974. The issuance of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.2566,
Home Department dated 01.11.1974 proceeded the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.2382, Home Department dated 05.09.1973, G.O.Ms.No.1048,
Home Department dated 27.04.1974 and Rc.No.39409/SR.2/73 of the
Inspector General of Police dated 01.11.1973 and 23.04.1974.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
39. In G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated 01.11.1974, the
distinction between the ‘Grade I Women Police Constable’ and ‘Grade II
Women Police Constable’ was blurred. Relevant portion from
G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated 01.11.1974 is reproduced below:-
“The General and Special Rules applicable to the holders
of the permanent posts in the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service shall apply to the holders of the
temporary posts of Women Sub Inspectors, Head
Constables and Police Constables sanctioned from time to
time in the Police Department, subject to the modification
specified in the following rues:
2. CONSTITUTION The posts shall constitute a distinct
category in the said class of the said service.”
40. Following qualification was prescribed for Women in Rule 5 of the
Notification in G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated 01.11.1974:-
5. QUALIFICATIONS: i. AGE: No person shall be eligible for
appointment to the post by direct recruitment unless she possesses
the following age limit, namely:-
CATEGORY QUALIFICATION
Woman Sub Inspector Must have completed 20 years
of age as on 1st July of the
year of recruitment.
Provided that the upper age
limit shall be 35 years instead
of 30 years for the
appointment by direct
recruitment of a candidate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
CATEGORY QUALIFICATION
who is a member of a
Schedule Caste or a Schedule
Tribe.
Provided also, the upper age
limit shall be 49 years for
appointment for promotion.
Woman Police Constable Must have completed 18 years
of age and must not have
completed thirty years of age.
Provided further that the
upper age limit shall be 35
years for the appointment of a
candidate who is a member of
a Schedule Caste or a
Schedule Tribe.
(b)Other Qualifications:- No person shall be eligible for
appointment to the post otherwise than by promotion unless she
possesses the following qualifications:-
CATEGORY QUALIFICATION
Woman Sub Inspector i. Direct recruitment
All the candidates including
candidates belonging to
Schedule Caste/Schedule
Tribe/Backward Class/Most
Backward Class and
Denotified Tribe shall possess
degree either in Tamil or
English Medium of any
University recognized by the
University Grants
Commission (UGC). They
must also possess sound
knowledge to speak, read and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
CATEGORY QUALIFICATION
write in Tamil.
ii. Promotion Experience for
a period of not less than
four years as Women
Head Constables.
Woman Police Constable S.S.L.C of old pattern or of
the new pattern of the State.
41. The expressions ‘Grade I’ and ‘Grade II’ were deleted in
G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated 01.11.1974. However, anomaly
still continued inasmuch as the expression ‘Grade II’ continued to still remain
in Category (iii) and (iv) of Rule 3 of the Adhoc Rules.
42. The qualification of ‘Grade I Women Police Constables’ under the Ad
hoc Rules is same as the qualification prescribed and applied for ‘Grade II Men
Police Constable’ under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. The
qualification for appointment to the post of ‘Grade II Men Police Constable’
was a pass in S.S.L.C (10th Standard) for Men.
43. Thus, it is clear that appointments under Ad hoc Rules dated
05.12.1973 as modified by G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
01.11.1974 were intended to create a temporary post for the Women Police
Wing in Madras City.
44. Recruitment of Women in the Police Department was made for the
first time in the year 1981-1982 and thereafter in the year 1986-1987 and later
in the year 1990-1991 as ‘Women Police Constables’.
45. Thus, the Private Respondents were appointed as ‘Women Police
Constable (WPC)’ in the year 1990-1991 under the Ad hoc Rules dated
05.12.1973 as modified by G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated
01.11.1974.
46. At that point of time, there was no scope for promoting ‘Grade II
Women Police Constable’ to the post of ‘Grade I Women Police Constable’, as
the post was being created for the first time and therefore it was construed that
there was no necessity to draw a distinction between the ‘Grade I Women
Police Constables’ and ‘Grade II Women Police Constables’.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
47. Thus, it is clear that the Private Respondents were to be otherwise
first recruited/appointed only as ‘Grade II Police Women Constables’ and
thereafter were to be promoted to the post of ‘Grade I Women Police
Constables’ and later as ‘Head Constables’ under the Ad hoc Rules. However,
due to the intervention under G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated
01.11.1974, the Private Respondents were recruited as ‘Women Police
Constables (WPC)’ without any reference to ‘Grade I’ and ‘Grade II’.
48. G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated 01.11.1974 was
intended to designate the direct recruiters like the Private Respondents as
‘Women Police Constable (WPC)’ simpliciter as otherwise the promotional post
of ‘Grade I Women Police Constable’ had remained unfilled and vacant for the
first ten years under the Ad hoc Rules after recruitment of ‘Women Police
Constables (WPC)’ began in 1981 as an experiment.
49. The blurring of the distinction between the post of ‘Grade-I Women
Police Constable’ and ‘Grade-II Women Police Constables’ was made when the
recruitment of Women into Police Service was still at its infancy between the
years 1981 and 1991.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
50. The blurring of the distinction between the post of ‘Grade I Women
Police Constables’ and ‘Grade II Women Police Constables’ was to merely
designate ‘Women Police Constables (WPC)’ as a separate class different from
‘Grade I Men Police Constables’ and ‘Grade II Men Police Constables’. It was
not intended to confer any special advantage to the Women.
51. It has to be also borne in mind that direct recruitment of ‘Grade I
Men Police Constables’ was introduced in 1972 for the first time. The direct
recruitment of ‘Grade I Men Police Constables’ was conducted in the years
1972 and 1974.
52. Thereafter, there are no reported information regarding direct
recruitment of Men as ‘Grade I Police Constables’ for some time. Otherwise, at
the entry level, the only avenue to Police Service was as ‘Grade II Police
Constables’ and later as ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ and ‘Inspector of Police’ et
cetera.
53. The year 1991, also marks an important milestone in the annals of the
Police Service in Tamil Nadu. In 1991, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Recruitment Board (TNUSRB), was constituted in November, 1991 vide
G.O.Ms.No.1806, Home (Ser.F) Department dated 29.11.1991.
54. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB),
which was constituted in November, 1991 for recruitment of personnel for the
Uniformed Services like Police, Prison and Fire and Rescue Services, has
streamlined the method of Direct Recruitment to various posts in the above
Uniformed Services.
55. The qualification prescribed for the ‘Women Police Constables’
which was amended by G.O.Ms.No.1203, Home (Police-III) Department
dated 08.08.1995 was a mere pass in S.S.L.C.
56. Until about 2006, the police personnel who were appointed as ‘Grade
I Police Constables’ and ‘Grade II Police Constables’, after completing their
requisite years of service as Constables and ‘Head Constables’ had to
participate in the test conducted by the Range Promotion Board (RPB).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
57. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.(Ms)No.1055, Home (Police
III) Department dated 01.11.2006 however decided to scrap the Range
Promotion Board (RPB) as large scale irregularities and nepotism were noticed
in the tests conducted by the Range Promotion Board (RPB).
58. It was thus decided to give promotion based on seniority. Relevant
portion of G.O.(Ms)No.1055, Home (Police III) Department dated
01.11.2006 is extracted hereunder:-
“ORDER
While replying to the discussion relating to the “Demand
No.22- Police” on 30.08.2006 in the Legislative Assembly, the
Hon’ble Chief Minister has made, among others, the following
announcement:-
29/ jkpH;ehL fhty;Jiw rhh;g[g;gzp rpwg;g[
tpjpapd;go ruf gjtp cah;t[f;fhd thhpak;. vGj;Jj;
njh;ita[k;. vGj;Jj; njh;tpy; btw;wp bgw;wth;fSf;F
clw;gapw;rpj; njh;t[fs; cs;spl;l neuoj; njh;t[fisa[k;
elj;jp. mjpy; njh;r;rp bgw;w jiyikf; fhtyh;fis
cjtp Ma;thsh;fshf (cs;S:h; kw;Wk; Ma[jg;gil)
gjtp cah;t[ mspf;f njh;e;bjLf;Fk; Kiw jw;nghJ
cs;sJ/
fhty;Jiwapy;. cjtp Ma;thsh; gzpf;Ff; fPnH
cs;s gjtpfSf;nfh. cjtp Ma;thsh; gzpf;F nky;
cs;s gjtpfSf;nfh ,j;jifa gjtp cah;t[f;fhd
njh;t[fs; elj;jg;gLtjpy;iy/ vdnt. jiyikf;
fhtyh;fs; kl;Lnk gjtp cah;t[f;fhd njh;t[fisj;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
jw;nghJ vGjp tUfpd;wdh;/ ,j;jifa nghf;F
jiyikf; fhtyh;fs; kj;jpapy; mjpUg;jpia
Vw;gLj;jpa[s;sJ/
gzpK:g;g[ kw;Wk; gzpg; gjpntLfis
Mjhukhff; bfhz;L. ,ju gjtpfSf;F gjtp cah;t[
mspg;gijg; nghd;W ,th;fSf;Fk; gjtp cah;t[
mspf;f ntz;Lk; vd;w nfhhpf;if jiyikf;
fhtyh;fspilna ePz;l gy Mz;Lfshf ,Ue;J
tUtijnaw;W. ,e;j muR ,dp jiyikf; fhtyh;
gjtpapypUe;J cjtp Ma;thsuhf gjtp cah;t[f;F
eilbgWk; njh;t[ Kiwia uj;J bra;fpwJ/
2. In pursuance of the announcement made by the Hon’ble
Chief Minister, the Director-General of Police has sent
necessary draft notification for amending the rule 3 (d) (iii) of
the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate
Service insofar as it relates to deleting of the Range Promotion
Board tests conducted to Head Constables/Head Constables
(Armed Reserve) for promotion as Sub-Inspectors of
Police/Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve).
3. The Government, after careful examination of the proposal
of the Director-General of Police, have decided to accept the
same. They accordingly direct that the provision relating to
conduct of Range Promotion Board tests, viz., written test and
viva-voce examination including drill test to Head
Constables/Head Constables (Armed Reserve) for promotion
as Sub-Inspectors of Police/Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed
Reserve) in rule 3 (d) (iii) of the Special Rules for the Tamil
Nadu Police Subordinate Service be deleted. Consequently, the
Government direct that promotions to the Head
Constables/Head Constables (Armed Reserve) as Sub-
Inspectors of Police/Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
be granted based on seniority and service records.
4. Necessary amendments to the Special Rules for the Tamil
Nadu Police Subordinate Service will be issued separately by
the Government in the Home (Police.VI) Department.”
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS
59. It is the case of the Appellants/Writ Petitioners that the Private
Respondents, who are ‘Women Police Constables’ recruited in the year 1991
were serving as 'Head Constables' notionally with effect from the year 1999 and
by virtue of the Impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.152, Home
(Police-III) Department issued by the 1st Respondent on 25.02.2011, the
Private Respondents were only upgraded as 'Special Sub-Inspector of Police'
which is not equivalent to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’.
60. Learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants/Writ Petitioners further
stated that any upgradation of the Private Respondents from the post of 'Head
Constables' as 'Special Sub-Inspector of Police' will not be equated the
promotion to the post of 'Sub-Inspector of Police' nor can be given seniority
over the Appellants/Writ Petitioners in the cadre of 'Sub-Inspector of Police'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
61. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants/Writ
Petitioners that as per Rule 18(e) of the Special Rules for Police Subordinate
Service, only pursuant to the institutional training given to eligible ‘Head
Constables’ and ‘Special Sub-Inspector of Police’ and the pre-promotional
training and the Written Test at the end of the institutional training, the Private
Respondents would be eligible for declaration in the 'B' List to be eligible for
promotion to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’.
62. Further, it is stated by the Appellants/Writ Petitioners that as per the
Service Rules, the pre-promotional training is mandatory and only after passing
the pre-promotional training and practical test, the ‘Head Constables’ and
‘Special Sub-Inspectors of Police’ can be considered for promotion to the post
of Sub-Inspectors of Police. It is therefore stated that before completing the
pre-promotional training, the Private Respondents cannot be promoted to the
post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ from the post of ‘Special Sub-Inspector of
Police’.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
63. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants/Writ
Petitioners that the 62 Private Respondents, i.e., the ‘Women Police Constables
(WPC)’ who were recruited in the year 1990-1991 who were initially brought in
the 'B' List on 11.04.2016 have not even been promoted to the post of ‘Sub-
Inspector of Police’ on the date when 'B' List was advanced with effect from
26.01.2011.
64. It is further submitted that the upgradation of the directly recruited
‘Women Police Constables’ as ‘Head Constables’ and as ‘Special Sub-
Inspectors of Police’ in itself is not in accordance to the Rules and is only
relaxing the upgradation policy of the Government vide the aforesaid
Government Orders.
65. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants/Writ Petitioners relied
on the Judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.35498 of 2019 etc., batch dated
15.12.2021 in A.V.Sophia and 14 others Vs. The Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Chennai and others, filed by the directly recruited
‘Women Police Constables’ of the year 1991 to upgrade them in par with their
men counterparts. The Court dismissed the batch of Writ Petitions stating that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
the ‘Women Police Constables’ who were directly recruited in the year 1991
were already given benefits by being directly recruited to Grade I Police
Constables and therefore cannot seek any advantage further.
66. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellants/Writ Petitioners that the order of the Director General of Police who
has no powers to violate the Rules to advance the 'B' List of the Private
Respondents, who had undergone pre-promotional training and were brought
into 'B' List only from 11.04.2016. It is therefore stated that they cannot be
arrayed as seniors to the Appellants/Writ Petitioners by advancement of 'B' List
by a period of 5 years from 11.04.2016 to 26.01.2011 and other dates as
mentioned in the Impugned Memorandum dated 18.09.2017.
67. It is the case of the Appellants/Writ Petitioners that the Service Rules
does not provide the advancement of the 'B' List of individuals who had
undergone pre-promotional training on a later date, detrimental to the interest
of the persons who are already in service in the particular cadre. It is stated that
the Director General of Police by the Impugned Memorandum dated
18.09.2017 has given seniority to the Private Respondents in the category of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ even before they were promoted to the post of ‘Sub-
Inspector of Police’.
68. It is submitted that promotion to the post of ‘Inspector of Police’ from
the feeder category of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ is based on the seniority in the
post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ and service records. When admittedly the
1991 batch of Women Sub-Inspectors of Police were brought into the 'B' List
on 11.04.2016 and were juniors to the directly recruited ‘Sub-Inspector of
Police’ on 01.02.2011, the advancement of the 'B' List of Women Special Sub-
Inspector of Police from 11.04.2016 to 26.04.2011 thereby moving their
seniority over the Appellants/Writ Petitioners is illegal, irregular and violation
of Service Rules.
69. It is submitted that by way of advancing the 'B' List, notionally for 62
Private Respondents i.e., ‘Women Police Constables (WPC) of 1991 batch’ is in
violation of the Service Rules and is absolutely arbitrary and discriminatory in
nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
70. Therefore, it is stated that in accordance to the Rules regarding the
pre-promotional training, which is mandatory for promotion of ‘Head
Constables/Special Sub Inspectors of Police’ as ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’, the
Impugned Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent, the
Director General of Police granting concession to ‘Women Police Constables
(WPC) of the year 1991’ by advancing the date of 'B' List from 11.04.2026 to
26.01.2011 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
71. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsels for the
Appellants/Writ Petitioners has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and that of this Court:
i. Rohitash Kumar and others Vs. Om Prakash Sharma
and others in Civil Appeal Nos.2133 and 2134 of 2004
dated 06.11.2012.
ii. K.Meghachandra Singh and others Vs. Ningam Siro
and others, (2020) 5 SCC 689.
iii. D.Damuraj Vs. The Director General of Police,
Chennai and another in W.A.No.879 of 2019 dated
10.12.2020.
iv. A.V.Sophia and 14 others Vs. The Secretary to
Government, Home Department, Chennai and others
in W.P.Nos.35498 of 2019 etc., batch dated 15.12.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
v. State of Bihar and others Vs. Akhouri Sachindranath
and others, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334.
vi. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. R.Santhakumari
Velusamy and others, (2011) 9 SCC 510.
vii.B.Thirumal Vs. Ananda Sivakumar and others, (2014)
16 SCC 593.
viii.State of Bihar and others Vs. Arbind Jee, (2021) 14
SCC 38.
ix. Union of India and another Vs. Manpreet Singh
Poonam and others, (2022) 6 SCC 105.
72. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsels for
the Respondents that at present only 62 persons from ‘Women Police
Constables (WPC)’ who were recruited in the year 1991 were placed above the
‘Sub-Inspectors of Police’ directly recruited in the year 2011, i.e., the
Appellants/Writ Petitioners. It is further stated that only 53 out of the aforesaid
62 persons are eligible to be promoted as ‘Inspector of Police (Taluk)’
remaining 211 persons from ‘Women Police Constables (WPC) 1991 batch’ are
placed below the 1058 ‘Sub Inspectors of Police of 2011 batch’ who were
directly recruited as per the date of promotion to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector of
Police’.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
73. The learned Senior Counsels for the Respondents further submitted
that in the absence of clear Rules for promotions, the Private Respondents faced
stagnation in each rank because of appointment as ‘Grade I Women Police
Constables’ despite their long period of service of more than 25 years.
Therefore, it is stated that the Private Respondents should not be termed as
ineligible for promotion as ‘Sub-Inspectors of Police’ on par with ‘Men Police
Constables’.
74. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsels for the Respondents
that by considering the similar relief granted to 1986 ‘Women Police
Constables’, the 2nd Respondent, the Director General of Police, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu had convened Special Range Promotion Board in the year 2015 for
1990 and 1991 batch and specifically indicated in Paragraph 6 of the Memo
dated 12.02.2016 that their seniority has to be fixed in 'C' List of ‘Head
Constables (Local)’ fit for promotion as ‘Sub-Inspector (Local)’ for the
respective year based on their Range seniority on par with their Junior Men
Head Constables. The Private Respondents were deputed to 9 weeks pre-
promotional training as second batch and 3 months practical training as per
Rule 18(e) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Appeal) Rules, 1955 and for the purpose of immediate officiation as ‘Sub
Inspector of Police’, the date of 'B' List was declared as 11.04.2016. The
training period detailed as under:-
Table-5
Panel Number of Pre-Promotional Practical Date of
Year Men Head Training Training Promotion as
Constables Sub-Inspector
promoted as (Taluk)
Sub-
Inspector
(Local)
2015 Men PCs Men PCs Men PCs 11.04.2016
1711 08.02.2016 to 11.04.2016 to
1990-1991 09.04.2016 11.07.2016
batch 351 1990-1991 batch 1990-1991
22.02.2016 to batch
23.04.2016 25.04.2016 to
25.07.2016
75. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsels for the Respondents
that the benefits granted to 1986 ‘Women Police Constables’ should not be
refused to ‘Women Police Constables (WPC) of 1990-1991 batch’ for the
reason of being Women Rank Promotees and due to subsequent appointment of
directly recruited ‘Sub-Inspectors of Police’. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
ruled that the benefits granted to one person should be extended to others in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
similar circumstances. This is to prevent discrimination and to uphold the
principle of equality.
76. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsels for the Respondents
that as per the ‘Head Constables Seniority’ with effect from 01.01.1999 alone,
the concerned Deputy Inspector Generals (DIGs) in Ranges have verified the
'C' List ordered by them in the Panel Years 2010 to 2015 and included the
names of ‘Women Police Constables (WPCs) of 1990-1991 batch’ in the
appropriate place in between their immediate Seniors and Juniors Police
Constables who have been upgraded as ‘Head Constables’ after 01.01.1999. It
is submitted that the above seniority fixation is in consonance with Special
Rules of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1955, which cannot be claimed as either improper or illegal.
77. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsels for the
Respondents that the 2nd Respondent, the Director General of Police, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu had not violated any rules. It is stated that the inclusion of the
names of the Private Respondents was not made randomly by choosing some of
the names of Women Grade I Police Constables and placed in an artificial date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
i.e., 26.01.2011 which is 5 days prior to the appointment of directly recruited
‘Sub-Inspectors of Police of 2011 batch’.
78. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsels for the
Respondents that certainly, the 'B' List date drawn by the Range Promotion
Board for the year 2010 had been declared as 26.01.2011 vide Memo in
RC.No.177005/NGB 4(1)/2010 dated 18.07.2011 itself. It is stated that the
original seniority of the ‘Women Police Constables (WPCs) of 1990-1991
batch’ was restored on par with ‘Men Police Constables’ in the Range but after
lapse of 6 years.
79. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsels for the Respondents
that in the interest of justice, the seniority restoration of the Private
Respondents was purely done on merit and as per their ‘Head Constable
Seniority’. The Private Respondents were granted advancement in the rank of
‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ as it is the primary responsibility of the Government
or Executive Authority concerned to decide the effect of equation. It is further
stated that the whole issue was considered and carried out in the matter of
equality which is protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
80. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsels for the Respondents
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Rule 39 of the Special Rules of
the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1955, is a residuary provision conferring overriding power and thus in terms of
the aforesaid Rule as fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the grant of
promotion/appointment of police personnels with retrospective effect is
permissible.
81. It is further submitted by the Respondents that as per Section 40(6) of
the Tamil Nadu Government Servant (Conditions) of Service Act, 2016, there
were no objections of placement of the ‘Women Police Constables of 1990-
1991 batch’ within three years from the date of inclusion and there is also no
mistake of fact occurred in this case, as all of them possessed service
qualification on the crucial date of the respective panels concerned. Hence, it is
stated that objecting their seniority at the time of considering their names for
the next higher rank i.e., the ‘Inspector of Police’ that too after a lapse of 7
years cannot be justifiable and sustainable with reference to the above-
mentioned Section of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
82. It is submitted by the Respondents that only 53 persons from the
‘Women Police Constables from the 1990-1991 batch’ are placed above the
‘Sub-Inspectors of Police of 2011 batch’ as per their seniority in the respective
ranges. It is submitted that in account of the vacancies, these Private
Respondents, who are eligible to get promoted as ‘Inspectors of Police’ will be
hardly serving for another four to five years and eventually get retired whereas
the other 211 persons from the ‘Women Police Constables of 1990 and 1991
batch’ will only be placed below the 1058 persons of ‘Sub-Inspectors of Police
from the 2011 batch’ of Direct Recruitment who would be serving for another
25 years. Therefore, it is submitted that no harm will be caused to the
Appellants/Writ Petitioners when the 53 persons of ‘Women Police Constables
from 1990-1991 batch’ get promoted before the Appellants/Writ Petitioners.
83. Learned Senior counsels for the Respondents has relied on the
following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
i. Pran Krishna Goswami and others Vs. State of West
Bengal and others, AIR 1985 SC 1605.
ii. Union of India and another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan
and others, (2010) 4 SCC 290.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
DISCUSSION
84. Having traced out the entire history of the recruitment of the Private
Respondents as ‘Women Police Constables’ (wrongly referred to as 'Grade I
Women Police Constables') under the Ad hoc Rules as modified by
G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated 01.11.1974 and the recruitment of
the Appellants/Writ Petitioners as ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ in the year 2011
with effect from 01.02.2011 and the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court
in “The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Chennai and others Vs. C.Srinivasan” in W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019 etc., batch
dated 04.02.2022 and the decision of the Writ Court in the Writ Petitions
mentioned above, we are of the view that challenge to the Impugned
G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011 cannot be
sustained.
85. Neither it can be said that the Appellants/Writ Petitioners were
aggrieved by the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III)
Department dated 25.02.2011 impugned in W.P. No. 2262 of 2023 as stated in
Table-1 which merely conferred certain monetary benefits and designation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
‘Special Sub-Inspector of Police’ was given to those who had served more than
25 years in the police force out of which 10 years was served as a ‘Head
Constable’. G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated
25.02.2011 did not confer any retrospective promotion to the Private
Respondents who were recruited during 1990-1991 under the Ad hoc Rules as
modified by G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated 01.11.1974.
86. We shall therefore contrast G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III)
Department dated 25.02.2011 with the Memorandum dated 18.09.2017
bearing RC.No.146633/NGB V(1)/2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent
impugned before the Writ Court in all the Writ Petitions as stated above.
G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011, impugned
in the W.P.No.2262 of 2023 is itself based on G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V)
Department dated 21.07.1998.
87. In the text of Paragraph No.4, G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V)
Department dated 21.07.1998, which has been extracted in the beginning of
this Order had clarified that a mere designation of a ‘Head Constable’ as a
‘Special Sub-Inspector of Police’ shall not be construed as a promotion to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ and that such ‘Head Constables’ who were
designated as ‘Special Sub-Inspectors of Police’, will be eligible for promotion
only after they cleared Departmental Examinations and on satisfying other
conditions stipulated therein to be eligible for promotion to the post of ‘Sub-
Inspector of Police’.
88. It was also clarified that out of 25 years of service, 10 years should
have been served in the capacity of ‘Head Constable’. Thus, what was
contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V) Department dated
21.07.1998 was only a designation/upgradation as ‘Special Sub-Inspector of
Police’ for the purpose of grant of monetary incentives subject to the conditions
stipulated therein.
89. Prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V) Department
dated 21.07.1998, about 400 ‘Women Police Constables’ who were recruited in
the year 1981 under the Ad hoc Rules read with G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home
Department dated 01.11.1974 were promoted as ‘Head Constables’ after they
had completed 15 years of service as ‘Women Police Constables’ by
G.O.Ms.No.1476, Home Department dated 03.10.1996.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
90. As far as the Private Respondents, who are ‘Women Police
Constables (WPCs)’ recruited/appointed in the 1991 batch are concerned,
similar promotions to the post of ‘Head Constable’ were also given to them vide
the following Government Order with effect from the year 2003 as detailed
below:-
Date Notification No. Number of Number of
Vacancies Promotion
(Pol.V) Department
91. Text of G.O.Ms.No.63, Home (Pol.V) Department dated
21.01.2003 is reproduced below:-
“In the G.O. first read above order were issued for
upgradation of 400 directly recruited Women Grade I
Police Constables appointed during 1981 who have
completed 15 years of service as Women Head
Constables.
2. In the Director General of Police’s letter read above,
he has stated that there is no direct recruitment of
Women Grade I Police Constables after 1991 Adhoc
Rules. Now there are 79 vacancies of Women Head
Constables. In order to fill up 292 promotee quota of
Women Sub-Inspector of Police, 292 Head Constables by
conducting Promotion Boards. Thus the vacancies in the
rank of Women Head Constables will be about 370
shortly. Further the Government have ordered to open 40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
All Women Police Stations during this year for which
120 Women Head Constables are required. 415 Women
Grade I Police Constables who are recruited during the
year 1991 have completed 11 years of service on date.
The Director General of Police has therefore requested
that considering on administrative point of view but the
large number of vacancies in the rank of Women Head
Constables likely to arise shortly, 415 Women Grade I
Police Constables appointed during 1990-1991 under
direct recruitment may be upgraded as Women Head
Contables against the existing and future vacancies
numbering 490 as one time measure.
3. The Government after carefully consideration have
decided to accept the above proposal of the Director
General of Police. Accordingly the Government direct
that 415 posts of Women Grade I Police Constables who
were directly recruited during 1991 be upgraded as
Women Head Constables.”
92. Later, about 34 of the ‘Women Police Constables (WPCs)’ who were
recruited in the year 1986 under the Ad hoc Rules read with G.O.Ms.No.2566,
Home Department dated 01.11.1974, who were promoted as ‘Head
Constables’ were designated as ‘Special Sub-Inspectors of Police (SSIs)’ as a
special case vide G.O.Ms.No.440, Home (Pol.III) Department dated
05.06.2009 after they had completed 23 years of service from the date of the
initial appointment as ‘Women Head Constables (WPCs)’ in the year 1986.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
93. Thus, G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V) Department dated
21.07.1998, G.O.Ms.No.440, Home (Police-III) Department dated
05.06.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated
25.02.2011 reflects the policy of the Government to incentivize those who put
in long period of service without an avenue for timely promotion.
94. This Court also had an occasion to capture the history and the dispute
that arose on account of perceived discrimination between the ‘Women Police
Constables (WPCs)’ and their male counterparts in a batch of Writ Petitions in
A.V.Sophia and 14 others Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home
Department, Chennai and others, in W.P.Nos.35498 of 2019 etc., batch. The
decision of this Court in the aforesaid case was rendered on 15.12.2021. We
were informed that although appeals have been filed by the some of the
Petitioners therein i.e., ‘Women Police Constables (WPCs)’ who were recruited
directly in the year 1981 and 1991, they have not been numbered so far.
95. To get a proper perspective, it would be useful to extract the relevant
portions from the aforesaid Order of the Writ Court dated 15.12.2021 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
W.P.Nos.35498 of 2019 etc., batch in A.V.Sophia and 14 others (cited supra).
Relevant portion of the Order of the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.35498 of 2019 etc.,
batch is reproduced below:-
“59. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective
petitioners are accepted, the petitioners being appointed
as Women Police Constables will be entitled to be
promoted as Head Constables within 5 years and
thereafter as Special Sub Inspectors / Sub Inspectors of
Police within a period of next 10 years, whereas, their
male counterparts would take about 25 years to be
promoted as Special Sub Inspectors / Sub Inspectors of
Police.
60. As the petitioners who were appointed as Women Police
Constables through direct recruitment in the years 1981
and 1991 were promoted as Head Constables in the
years 1996 & 1997 and 1999 and as Sub Inspectors of
Police in the years 2003 &2004 and 2009 respectively
are concerned, they cannot claim any further benefit
merely because they were recruited as Women Police
Constables.
61. It would be fallacious to treat the petitioners as
superiors to their male counterparts who were appointed
as Grade II Police Constables as the appointment of the
petitioners in the years 1981 and 1991 was only at the
entry level with a minimum educational qualification of
SSLC.
62. If the contention of the petitioners are accepted, an
anomalous situation would arise. Following Chart
demonstrates the position:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Batch Head Special Sub- Inspector
Constable Inspector/
Sub-Inspector
1981 batch 1986 1996 2006
Gr.I W.P.Cs
1991 batch 1996 2006 2016
Gr.I W.P.Cs
63. It would confer undue advantage on the petitioners. The
Government of Tamil Nadu had already considered the case
of the petitioners by promoting the 1981 batch Women Police
Constables as Head Constables with effect from the years
1996 & 1997 and the 1991 batch Women Police Constables as
Head Constables with effect from the year 1999 and
thereafter by promoting as Sub Inspector with effect from the
years 2003 & 2004 and 2009 respectively. They also have
been given notional benefits in terms of G.O.(Ms.) No.152,
Home (Police III) Department, dated 25.02.2011.
64. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to be similarly placed
persons as that of their male counterparts who were recruited
in the bottom at the entry point of time as Grade II Police
Constables and thereafter upgraded as Grade I Police
Constables at the end of 10 years as Grade II Police
Constables merely based on their designations.
65. In the light of the above, there are no merits in these Writ
Petitions and they therefore deserve to be dismissed. The
petitioners are however given liberty to approach the
respondents for appropriate relaxation.
66. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No cost.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
96. Thus, 415 ‘Women Police Constables (WPCs)’ who were recruited in
the year 1991 and who had served approximately 12 to 13 years as ‘ Women
Police Constables’ were promoted as ‘Head Constables’ in the year 2003 and
2004 retrospectively with effect from January, 1999.
97. This was ostensible because the aforesaid ‘Women Police Constables’
had completed 9 years as ‘Women Police Constables’ since 1991 and since their
male counterparts who had served as Grade I Police Constables were given
promotion as ‘Head Constables’ on completion of 5 years as ‘Grade I Police
Constables’ unmindful of the fact that these 415 ‘Women Police Constables’
entered the service directly as ‘Grade I Women Police Constables’ even though
they possessed the same qualification as that of ‘Grade II Men Police
Constables’, namely, a pass in 10th Standard.
98. In fact, this was the reason why the promotions that were given to the
‘Grade I Men Police Constables’ earlier was not disturbed by the Writ Court
vide Order dated 15.12.2021 in a batch of Writ Petitions in A.V.Sophia and 14
others (cited supra). This Court also declined to give promotion to the ‘Women
Police Constables (WPCs)' of 1991 batch. The blurring of the entry level post
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
of ‘Grade II Women Police Constable’ and the promotional post of ‘Grade I
Women Police Constable’ vide G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated
01.11.1974 was not intended to confer any undue advantage to the Women
Police Personnels.
99. In fact, in the said decision, the Court had clearly observed in
Paragraph No.63 that the Private Respondents who were recruited as ‘Women
Police Constable’ in the year 1991 had been given notional benefit in terms of
Impugned G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011.
100. As mentioned above G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V) Department
dated 21.07.1998 merely intended to give monetary benefits to the ‘Head
Constables’ by upgrading them to the post of ‘Special Sub Inspector of Police’
who had served for a predominantly long period. As mentioned elsewhere in
this order, the post of ‘Special Sub-Inspector of Police’ was merely an
upgradation post and not a promotional post as evident from the Government
Order in G.O(Ms.)No.937, Home (Police III) Department dated 21.07.1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
101. The Private Respondents who were recruited as ‘Women Police
Constables’ in the year 1991 under the Ad hoc Rules were promoted as ‘Head
Constables’ only in the year 2003 and 2004 retrospectively with effect from
01.01.1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.63, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.01.2003.
102. They have been given further incentives by way of G.O.Ms.No.152,
Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011 owing to the long period of
service as 'Women Police Constables' and later as a 'Head Constables' from
2003-2004 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1999. Thus, their designation
upgraded as 'Special Sub-Inspector of Police' with effect from the year 2009.
Thus, the Private Respondents were not given promotion to the post of ‘Sub-
Inspector of Police’ in the year 2009.
103. In Chief Office Memorandums dated 20.10.2015, 27.01.2016 and
22.03.2016, all the unit officers were directed to convene a Range Promotion
Board to draw ‘C’ list of ‘Head Constables (Local)’ fit for promotion as ‘Sub-
Inspector of Police (Local)’ for the year 2015 to fill up the vacancies in the post
of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police (Local)’ under promotee quota as on 01.01.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
This is captured in the Memorandum of the 2nd Respondent dated 19.07.2016
in his proceedings bearing Reference RC.No.31864/DGP.IV(2)/2015.
104. Thus, the names of the Private Respondents would have been
included in the ‘C’ List for promotion to the post of ‘Head Constable’ only
during 2003 and 2004 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1999 pursuant to
G.O.Ms.No.63, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.01.2003.
105. It is only after the Private Respondents were promoted as ‘Head
Constables’ with effect from 01.01.1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.63, Home (Pol.V)
Department dated 21.01.2003, they would be eligible to be promoted to the
post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ after obtaining the requisite qualification.
During the interregnum Impugned G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III)
Department dated 25.02.2011 was issued.
106. Pursuant to the aforesaid Memorandum of the 2nd Respondent
dated 19.07.2016 bearing Reference RC.No.31864/DGP.IV(2)/2015, the
selection process is said to have been completed and the ‘Head
Constable/Special Sub-Inspector of Police (Local)’ who were fit for promotion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police (Local)’ were deputed for 9 weeks for
pre-promotional training in the year 2015.
107. As far as Men Sub-Inspector of Police (Local) are concerned, they
were sent for training from 08.02.2016. As far as the Private Respondents are
concerned, who were recruited in the year 1990-1991, they were sent for
training only from 24.02.2016 for a period of 9 weeks at the venues arranged by
the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police at ranges.
In the said Memorandum dated 19.07.2016 bearing Reference
RC.No.31864/DGP.IV(2)/2015, it has been further confirmed that both the
categories of Police personnels had completed the 9 weeks pre-promotional
training on the dates mentioned therein and had undergone practical training
from 11.04.2016 to 11.07.2016 and from 25.04.2016 to 25.07.2016
respectively. Thus, these Private Respondents obtained qualification to be
promoted to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ only in the year 2016 in terms
of Rule 18(e)(vii) of the Special Rules for Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules,
1955 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.733, Home (Pol.VI) Department dated
11.07.2000. The said Rule reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
“Rule 18. ....
i. Head Constables selected for promotion as Sub-
Inspectors shall undergo a course of training for nine
weeks in the Police Training College, in the syllabus
furnished in Annexure VIII. During the period of
training, they shall be paid an allowance of Rs.15/- each
per month in addition to pay and Allowances that they
would have drawn but for their training.
ii. A Written examination and a Drill test shall be held for
the Head Constables considered fit for promotion as Sub-
Inspectors in the eighth week of their training. The
results of this examination shall be announced three days
prior to completion of the ninth week.
iii. Those Head Constables who fail in the examination shall
be required to undergo training for a further period of
two weeks and they shall be given a second and final
chance to pass the examination. Failure for the second
time will entail the removal of the name from the 'C' List
of Head Constables fit for promotion to the rank of Sub-
Inspectors.
iv. ......
v. ......
vi. ......
vii.There shall be a compulsory and pre-requisite course
for promotion from Head Constable to Sub-Inspector.
The details of the course shall be as specified in
Annexure XIII.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
108. By a reading of Rule 18(e)(vii) of the Special Rules for Police
Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1955, makes it clear that there should be a
compulsory and pre-requisite course in Annexure XIII for promotion to the post
of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’.
109. Thus, the names of the Private respondents whose names were in the
‘C’ list were included in the ‘B’ list along with the Men Sub-Inspectors of
Police and was declared only with effect from 11.04.2016 i.e., the date of
commencement of practical training of the first batch. The aforesaid
Memorandum dated 19.07.2016 of the 2nd Respondent, Director of General of
Police bearing Reference RC.No.31864/DGP.IV(2)/2015 has made this
position clear.
110. It is also evident from a reading of the Impugned Memorandum
dated 18.09.2017 that the Private Respondents had been declared in the ‘B’ list
only with effect from 11.04.2016. In other words, the Private Respondents
were eligible for promotion to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ only with
effect from 11.04.2016 after having obtained the requisite qualifications for the
post of ‘Sub-Inspectors of Police’.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
111. In “State of Bihar and others Vs. Akhousri Sachindra Nath and
others”, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no
person can be promoted with retrospective effect from the date when he was not
borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect others. The Court further held that
inter-se seniority will be considered from the date of the length of the service as
amongst members of the same grade and seniority is to be reckoned from the
date of their initial entry into the service. There, it was further held that
promotees cannot be made seniors over the direct recruits as the former entered
into service by promotion after the latter was directly recruited to the said post.
Relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“In the instant case, the promotee respondents 6 to 23
were not born in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in the
Bihar Engineering Service, Class II at the time when
respondents 1 to 5 were directly recruited to the post of
Assistant Engineer and as such they cannot be given
seniority in the service of Assistant Engineers over
respondents 1 to 5. It is well settled that no person can be
promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he
was not born in the cadre so as to adversely affect others.
It is well settled by several decisions of this Court that
among members of the same grade seniority is reckoned
from the date of their initial entry into the service. In
other words, seniority inter se among the Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
Engineers in Bihar Engineering Service, Class II will be
considered from the date of the length of service
rendered as ‘Assistant Engineers as amongst members of
the same grade seniority is reckoned from the date of
their initial entry into the service. The promotees cannot
be made senior to respondents 1 to 5 by the impugned
government orders as they entered into the said service
by promotion after respondents 1 to 5 were directly
recruited in the quota of direct recruits.”
112. In “P.Sudhakar Rao and others Vs. U.Govinda Rao and others”,
AIR 2013 SC 2533, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that retroactivity must
still meet the test of Article 14 and Article 16 of Constitution of India and that it
must not adversely trench upon the entitlement of seniority of others. It further
held that mere existence of a vacancy was not enough to enable an employee to
claim seniority and that seniority given from the date when they were not even
eligible for appointment to the said post is impermissible. Therefore, the Court
held that in order to pass the scrutiny of Article 14, seniority should be
reckoned only from the date on which the employees satisfied all real and
objective procedural requirements. Relevant portion of the Judgment is
extracted hereunder:-
“61. More recently, and finally, in Pawan Pratap Singh v.
Reevan Singh MANU/SC/0108/2011 : (2011) 3 SCC 267
all relevant precedents on the subject were considered,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
including the Constitution Bench decision in Direct
Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of
Maharashtra MANU/SC/0291/1990 : (1990) 2 SCC 715
and the legal position summarized (by Lodha, J.) as
follows:
(i) The effective date of selection has to be
understood in the context of the service rules
under which the appointment is made. It may
mean the date on which the process of
selection starts with the issuance of
advertisement or the factum of preparation of
the select list, as the case may be.
(ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to
be determined as per the service rules. The
date of entry in a particular service or the
date of substantive appointment is the safest
criterion for fixing seniority inter se between
one officer or the other or between one group
of officers and the other recruited from
different sources. Any departure therefrom in
the statutory rules, executive instructions or
otherwise must be consistent with the
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
(iii) Ordinarily, notional seniority may not be
granted from the backdate and if it is done, it
must be based on objective considerations and
on a valid classification and must be traceable
to the statutory rules.
(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date
of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be
given retrospectively unless it is so expressly
provided by the relevant service rules. It is so
because seniority cannot be given on
retrospective basis when an employee has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
even been borne in the cadre and by doing so
it may adversely affect the employees who
have been appointed validly in the meantime.
62. .....
63. The facts of the appeals before us show that at least some
of the Supervisors were given retrospective seniority on the
date when they were not even eligible for appointment as
Junior Engineers. The precedents referred to above show
that this is impermissible. In addition as pointed out by
the High Court, there is no indication of the vacancy
position, that is, whether the Supervisors could be adjusted
in the grade of Junior Engineers from the date on which
they were given notional retrospective seniority. There is
also no indication whether the quota of vacancies for
Supervisors was adhered to as on the date on which they
were given notional retrospective seniority. The case law
suggests that this is an important factor to be considered.
Finally, it is quite clear that the grant of retrospective
seniority to Supervisors has adversely impacted on the
promotion chances of Junior Engineers by bringing them
down in seniority. This too is impermissible.
64. From the various decisions referred to and from the facts
of the case, it is clear that to pass the scrutiny of Article 14
of the Constitution, the seniority of Supervisors should be
reckoned only from the date on which they satisfied all the
real and objective procedural requirements of the Andhra
Pradesh Engineering Service Rules and the law laid down
by this Court. This has not happened in the present
appeals creating a situation of unreasonableness and
unfairness.”
113. Similarly, in “K.Meghachandra Singh and others Vs. Ningam
Siro and others”, (2020) 5 SCC 689, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
person is not entitled to claim seniority from a date when he was not borne in
service in that particular cadre. There, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on
its earlier decision in “Nani Sha Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh”, AIR 2007
SC 2356 held that seniority is to be reckoned not from the date when the
vacancy to the post arose but from the date on which the appointment was
made to the post. The Court particularly held that retrospective seniority
should not be granted from a day when an employee was not even borne in the
cadre.
114. Therefore, the Impugned Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing
Ref.RC.No.146633/NGB IV(1)/2017 cannot be countenanced wherein the
names of the Private Respondents have been placed above the names of the
Appellants/Writ Petitioners who were earlier recruited on 01.02.2011. As
Private Respondents had not been appointed as ‘Sub Inspectors of Police’ when
the Appellants/Writ Petitioners were borne to the cadre directly as ‘Sub
Inspectors of Police’ with effect from 01.02.2011, the Private Respondents
cannot claim seniority over the Appellants/Writ Petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
115. Thus, benefit conferred under G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III)
Department dated 25.02.2011 cannot in any way result in conferring of
seniority to the Private Respondents over the Appellants/Writ Petitioners, as the
Private Respondents had not been promoted as ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ when
the Appellants/Writ Petitioners had joined the police force with effect from
01.02.2011.
116. In any event, Impugned G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III)
Department dated 25.02.2011 has not authorised the 2nd Respondent, Director
General of Police, Chennai, Tamil Nadu for issuance of the Impugned
Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing Ref.RC.No.146633/NGB IV(1)/2017
to refix the seniority with retrospective effect by placing the Appellants/Writ
Petitioners below the Private Respondents i.e., the ‘Women Police Constables’
recruited in the year 1990-1991.
117. Since, the Private Respondents were promoted as ‘Sub-Inspector of
Police’ only in the year 2016 and their names were included in the ‘B’ list only
with effect from 11.04.2016, the Private Respondents cannot march over the
Appellants/Writ Petitioners, as the Appellants/Writ Petitioners had directly been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
recruited as ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’ earlier on 01.02.2011. The
Appellants/Writ Petitioners are senior in the post of 'Sub-Inspector of Police' to
the Private Respondents, who were recruited as ‘Women Police Constables
(WPC)’ in the year 1991.
118. The names of the Private Respondents were correctly included in the
Seniority List that was prepared on 19.07.2016 after their promotion to the post
of ‘Sub-Inspector of Police’. It was unnecessarily tampered by the Impugned
Memorandum dated 18.09.2017.
119. Further, as mentioned above, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.152,
Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011 has not promoted the
‘Women Police Constables (WPC)’ of 1991 batch who were appointed as per
the Ad hoc Rules as amended by G.O.Ms.No.2566, Home Department dated
01.11.1974, as 'Sub-Inspectors of Police' to the place above the Appellants/Writ
Petitioners who were directly recruited as 'Sub-Inspectors of Police' in the year
2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
120. Therefore, we are inclined to partly allow these Writ Appeals by
quashing the Impugned Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing
Ref.Rc.No.146633/NGB IV(1)/2017 issued by the Director General of Police,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, the 2nd Respondent in these Writ Appeals.
121. As far as the incentives given to the Private Respondents under the
G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011 are
concerned, they are not to be disturbed in view of the long standing policy
decision of the Government which was earlier implemented by
G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998.
122. That apart, the benefit of incentives granted to the Private
Respondents 1990-1991 batch who were directly recruited as 'Women Police
Constables' (wrongly referred to as Grade-I Women Police Constables) cannot
be countenanced in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
“State of Punjab and others Vs Rafiq masih (White Washer) and others”,
2015 (4) SCC 334.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
123. Therefore, these Writ Appeals are partly allowed insofar as
challenge to the Impugned Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing
Ref.Rc.No.146633/NGB IV(1)/2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent, the Director
General of Police, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and partly dismissed insofar as
challenge to G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 21.07.1998. in
these Writ Appeals.
124. In the result,
i. W.A.No.2824 of 2023 is partly allowed to the above extent;
ii. W.A.No.2937 of 2023, W.A.No.3094 of 2023, W.A.No.3381 of 2023
and W.A.No.2045 of 2024 are allowed.
iii. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
16.04.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
Pre-Delivery Common Judgment in
W.A.Nos.2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023
and
16.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 05:59:19 pm )
