Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police vs Thirumurugan on 28 April, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.2721 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.2721 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.18810 of 2024
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2.The Additional Director General of Police,
Technical Service,
Police Telecommunication Branch,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Technical Services,
Police Telecommunication Branch,
Chennai-600 004. ... Appellants
vs.
Thirumurugan ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 06.03.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.14334 of
2021.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:10 pm )
W.A(MD)No.2721 of 2024
For Appellant : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.V.Vishnu
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 06.03.2024
made in W.P(MD)No.14334 of 2021.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as
follows:
The respondent / writ petitioner participated in the selection
process for the post of Sub-Inspector (Technical) conducted by the Tamil
Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) in the year
2008 and he was successful in the physical and written examinations.
However, in the medical examination, he was found 'unfit' on the
ground that he is having a defect in colour vision. Therefore, the
respondent made a representation seeking second medical examination
which was granted and ultimately he was found 'fit' in the second
medical test. Thereafter, he was appointed as Sub-Inspector (Technical)
vide proceedings dated 30.06.2010. A call letter was sent to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:10 pm )
respondent for training on 07.07.2010 along with II Batch. After
completion of the training, he was working as Sub-Inspector (Technical).
While so, in the seniority list for the post of Sub-Inspector (Technical)
that was prepared on 25.09.2017, his name was not included even in the
III Batch of 2010, on the ground that he was sent for training later due to
the delay in his appointment as Sub-Inspector (Technical) because of the
first medical report making the respondent 'unfit' for the said post.
Hence, the respondent filed the writ petition for a Mandamus to re-fix
his seniority on par with his batch mates, contending that he was no
way responsible for the first medical report, wherein, he was
disqualified. Since the said medical report was found to be erroneous
one by the Second Medical Board, he is entitled to be included in his
original batch recruited in the year 2010. The Writ Court finding merits
on the contentions of the respondent, allowed the writ petition by
impugned order, against which, the department is on appeal.
3. The core contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants is that as per Section 40(6) of the
Tamil Nadu Government Services (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:10 pm )
application for revision of seniority of a person shall be submitted to the
appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of
appointment to such service and any application received after the said
period of three years shall be summarily rejected. In this case, the
respondent who was appointed in 2010, ought to have made application
within three years therefrom. However, he has made such application
for revision of seniority after a lapse of more than 7 years, as such, the
application is time barred one and shall be summarily rejected as per the
above said provision. However, the Writ Court has failed to advert to
the above provision and erroneously allowed the writ petition. Thus,
she would pray for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would state that for the
delay in conducting medical test, the respondent is not responsible and
he cannot be affected by such delay. Once the respondent clears the
process of selection and orders of appointment are issued and he was
sent for training, the marks secured by him in the examination would be
the basis for fixation of seniority. The Writ Court has rightly
appreciated the same and has allowed the writ petition. Thus, he would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:10 pm )
pray for dismissal of the appeal. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel would rely upon the common judgment made in
W.A(MD)No.1985 of 2024 etc batch dated 24.04.2025 (K.Muthu and
others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Police Department, Chennai and
others).
5. Heard both sides.
6. The only contention raised by the appellants is that
application of revision of seniority shall be made within three years
from the date of appointment of the respondent. Since he made such
application after a lapse of 7 years, it shall be summarily rejected.
However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent, seniority of the respondent will have to be decided on the
basis of the marks obtained by him in the examinations, irrespective of
his date of appointment. In this regard, it is relevant to extract below the
observations of the Division Bench in K.Muthu's case (supra) cited by
the counsel for the respondent:
''23. A perusal of the above observations of the Hon’ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:10 pm )
Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that when seniority
is made dependent on marks obtained in examination to be
conducted after the training. The seniority of all the candidates
selected in a particular selection process will have to be decided
on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the examinations,
irrespective of the date of appointment.
24. These candidates were selected in a particular
selection process cannot be split into different batches for the
purposes of fixation of seniority. When large recruitments takes
place for a large force like the Police Force, it is humanly
impossible to conduct training for all the candidates recruited
in one selection process at the same time as necessary
infrastructure may not be available. Therefore, it becomes
imperative that the candidates are divided into batches and sent
for training. The delay in training by itself cannot affect the
seniority of the candidates, who were selected in the same
selection process.
25. Similarly, where some of the candidates selected do
not join and a wait list or a reserve list is operated and those
vacancies are filled up by the candidates in the reserved list or
the wait list, there is bound to be certain delay and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in A.Raghu vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 221, had
specifically dealt with such situation and has held that dehors
such delay, the seniority of the candidates will be determined
only by the marks obtained in the examinations conducted after
the training in view of the specific rules. We must, at this
juncture, point out that proviso to Rule 25 (a) of the Special
Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, is in pari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:10 pm )
materia with Rule 15(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil)
Subordinate Service Rules. 1959.
26. In the cases on hand either there was an erroneous
rejection of the candidature of the appellants or there was a
delay in conducting the medical test. The candidates were not
responsible in both the cases. Therefore, they cannot be affected
by such delay. Once they clear the process of selection and
orders of appointment are issued and they are sent for training,
the marks secured by them in the examination conducted after
training would be the basis for fixation of seniority. Therefore,
all the appellants would be entitled to the seniority as per the
marks obtained by them in the examination conducted after
completion of the training in the Police Training College, de
hors the dates of appointment.''
7. In view of the said judgment, we do not find any infirmity in
the order impugned passed by the Writ Court.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
28.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:10 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2.The Additional Director General of Police,
Technical Service,
Police Telecommunication Branch,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Technical Services,
Police Telecommunication Branch,
Chennai-600 004.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 28.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 03:05:10 pm )
