[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P.Ramakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 January, 2026
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 12.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD).No.24445 of 2024 & W.P.No.8810 of 2025
and
WMP.(MD).Nos.20776, 20777 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.6589, 6590 & 6592 of
2025
1.P.Ramakrishnan
2.K.Pandeeswari
3.V.Sudarvizhi
4.M.Ragavendra
5.J.Kumar
...Petitioners in both W.Ps
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Home (Police-III) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Head of Police Force, Police Head Quarters,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Additional Director General of Police,
Armed Police, No.10, Lutens Garden,
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
Email Id: [email protected]
4.The Inspector General of Police,
Armed Police, Headquarters,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010
Email Id: [email protected]
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Armed Police, Headquarters,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
6.The Armed Police Promotion Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Armed Police, Headquarters,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
7.The Commandant,
TSP VI Battalion, Reserve line Post,
Madurai – 14,
Email Id – [email protected]
8.The Commandant,
TSP IX Battalion, Manimuthar,
Tirunelveli District,
Email Id : [email protected]
9.The Commandant,
TSP XIV Battalion, Palani, Dindigul District,
Email Id: [email protected]
10.A.Kavitha,
Sub-Inspector of Police,
TSP II Battalion, Avadi, Chennai – 54.
(In a representative capacity on behalf of the
Candidates included in the “C” list of the Havildars
(General) fit for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector
of Police (General) and promoted in 2018-2019)
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
11.M.P.Saraswathi,
Sub-Inspector of Police,
TSP III Battalion,
Veerapuram, Chennai.
(In a representative capacity on behalf of the Candidates
included in the “C” list of the Havildars (General) fit for
promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (General)
and promoted in 2009-2010 & 2010-2011)
...Respondents in both W.Ps
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.24445 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official
respondents to consider the writ petitioners’ candidature for promotion to the post of
“Inspector of Police” (G) against the available vacancies by including their name in the
list of qualified candidates suitable for promotion arranged in an order of preference
over and above the claim of the Havildars promoted to the post of “Sub-Inspector of
Police (General)” in 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2018-2019 by strictly adhering to the
proportional ratio (Quota) of 40:60 in which the vacancies in the post of “Sub-
Inspectors” should have been filled up by way of promotion from Havildars and by
direct recruitment as prescribed under Rule 7 of the “Tamil Nadu Special Police
Subordinate Service Rules, 1978”.
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.8810 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, praying to
call for the records relating to DTO:251300 dated 25.03.2025 on the file of the 6th
respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to
refrain from issuing orders of promotion based on the combined seniority list drawn by
the 6th respondent pertaining to the category of Sub-Inspector of Police (General) fit for
3/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
promotion as Inspector of Police (General) and direct the Respodents to draw the
seniority strictly adhering to the proportional ratio (Quota) of 40:60 in which the
vacancies in the post of “Sub-Inspectors” should have been filled up by way of
promotion from Havildars and by direct recruitment as prescribed under Rule 7(2)(a) of
the “Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978” and thereby render
justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
(in both W.Ps)
For Respondents
RR1 to R9 : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Assisted by Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
(in both W.Ps)
RR10 : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan
Senior Advocate
For M/s.P.R.Prithiviraj
(in both W.Ps)
COMMON ORDER
The writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.24445 of 2024 has been filed, seeking for a
Writ of Mandamus, to direct the official respondents to consider the writ petitioners’
candidature for promotion to the post of “Inspector of Police” (G) against the available
vacancies by including their name in the list of qualified candidates suitable for
promotion arranged in an order of preference over and above the claim of the Havildars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
promoted to the post of “Sub-Inspector of Police (General)” in 2009-2010, 2010-2011
and 2018-2019 by strictly adhering to the proportional ratio (Quota) of 40:60 in which
the vacancies in the post of “Sub-Inspectors” should have been filled up by way of
promotion from Havildars and by direct recruitment as prescribed under Rule 7 of the
“Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978”.
2. The writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.8810 of 2025 has been filed, seeking for a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to DTO:251300 dated
25.03.2025 on the file of the 6th respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary
and to direct the respondents to refrain from issuing orders of promotion based on the
combined seniority list drawn by the 6th respondent pertaining to the category of Sub-
Inspector of Police (General) fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (General) and
direct the Respondents to draw the seniority strictly adhering to the proportional ratio
(Quota) of 40:60 in which the vacancies in the post of “Sub-Inspectors” should have
been filled up by way of promotion from Havildars and by direct recruitment as
prescribed under Rule 7(2)(a) of the “Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service
Rules, 1978” and thereby render justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were
all recruited as Sub-Inspectors by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board and were appointed in the year 2011, pursuant to a notification issued on
01.04.2010, as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Wing. He
would further submit that the batchmates who have been appointed under the same
notification and who have migrated to the other wings of the Police Department have
progressed through various categories, but the petitioners, who have been recruited as
Sub-Inspectors, did not have the chance of further progression.
4. He would submit that the next higher promotion is to the post of Inspector of
Police. He would further submit that there are 386 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police
under the Tamil Nadu Police Special Subordinate Service, of which 40% should be filled
up by way of promotion from the post of Havildars and the remaining 60% to be filled
by direct recruitment. He would submit that in violation of the said ratio, Havildars have
been promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police, encroaching upon the 60% of the sanctioned
strength to be filled up by direct recruitment.
5. He would submit that out of the 386 sanctioned posts of Sub-Inspector of
Police, as per the ratio, 232 posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and 154 posts,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
being 40%, are to be filled up by way of promotion. However, on the contrary, the
Havildars who were holding the promotional category as of the year 2009 had been
promoted beyond the 40% sanctioned posts to be filled up by way of promotion.
6. He would submit that there is no combined seniority list prepared in the cadre
of Sub-Inspector of Police, consisting of promotees and direct recruits. He would further
submit that the judicial proceedings relating to the dispute inter se between the
Havildars for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police came to rest finally in the
month of January 2024, pursuant to which, proceedings were issued by the Additional
Director General of Police /the third respondent, by way of an order for restoration of
seniority of directly recruited Grade-II Constables of the year 1997 on par with their
batchmates, who were promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the ‘C’ list of the year
2009–2010, and thereafter, ‘C’ list of Havildars fit for promotion to the post of Sub-
Inspector was published, wherein 183 candidates were included in the said list and were
promoted.
7. He would vehemently contend that, as per the rules governing the method of
appointment, only 154 vacancies in the post of Sub-Inspector could be filled up by way
of promotion, and therefore, anything beyond 154 posts filled up for promotion would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
be intruding the vacancies available in the direct recruitment. He would submit that by
granting promotion based upon judicial precedents to a larger number of promotional
candidates, cannot take away the seniority of directly recruited persons.
8. He would submit that, as per the ‘C’ list of seniority, persons beyond serial
number 155 could take seniority only as and when vacancies arises within the 154 posts
of the promotional category, and they all have to be placed below the direct recruits,
who had been appointed in the vacancy on the said date. Hence, the petitioners have
made representations on various dates; however, no response has been forthcoming.
9. He would submit that the petitioners are also in the eminent ‘C’ list of Sub-
Inspectors, suitable for promotion to the post of Inspectors, wherein the Havildars who
were promoted in violation of the 40% quota earmarked for promotion would have a
march over the directly recruited candidates like the petitioners. Therefore, he would
seek the indulgence of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents
to promote the petitioners.
10. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
reported in the case of A.N.Sehgal and others vs. Raje Ram Sheoran and others,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 304, wherein it has been held that promotees cannot
claim seniority when there are no vacancies within their quota. In this context, he would
contend that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that promotees, who are occupying
vacancies within the quota of direct recruits shall either be reverted to the lower category
or absorbed within their quota, if vacancies are available. He would submit that, at best,
their seniority could only be reckoned only from the date when vacancies arise within
their quota and not from any earlier date.
11. He would submit that if the respondents are allowed to promote Havildars
beyond the 154 promotional vacancies, it would affect the method of appointment to the
post of Sub-Inspectors under the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules,
apart from affecting the rights of direct recruits for promotion to the post of Inspectors.
Hence, he prays this Court to grant a writ of mandamus as prayed for.
12. Countering his arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General, at the
outset, submitted that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches. He would submit that the petitioners are attempting to revisit promotions,
which were given even before the date of their appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
13. Relying upon the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate
Service Rules, which are in pari materia with sub-section (6) of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants’ Conditions of Service Act, 2016, he would submit that any
grievance with regard to seniority should be made within a period of three years from
the date of appointment into such service. Hence, the challenge to the seniority that was
published 14 years back of Havildars, who have been appointed as Sub-Inspectors of
Police cannot be entertained by this Court.
14. He would further submit that the vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector of
Police in the Tamil Nadu Special Police are filled up by following the methods of
promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 60:40. As per Rule 24(e) of the Tamil
Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, the inter se seniority of those
appointed by more than one method of recruitment shall be fixed based on the date of
appointment in the category. In that context, he would submit that the petitioners, who
were appointed in the year 2011, cannot seek placement above the promoted Havildars
whose promotion had taken place in the year 2010, i.e., prior to the petitioners being
borne into service in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
15. Referring to the table in the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, he
would contend that the total sanctioned strength of Sub-Inspectors of Police is 386,
which includes 98 posts of temporary Sub-Inspectors. Therefore, the 60% quota
representing the direct recruits would be 173 posts and the rank promotees would be 115
posts.
16. He would submit that as on 31.12.2009, there were 163 direct recruits working
as Sub-Inspectors of Police and 173 as rank promotees. As vacancies arose in the
promotional category, 90 Havildars were promoted based on the ‘C’ list drawn on
31.12.2008 and 30 Havildars were promoted based on the ‘C’ list on 31.12.2009. Thirty
Havildars who were found in the ‘C’ list were not promoted as there were no vacancies.
He would further submit that a combined seniority list was drawn for the year 2022–23
pursuant to the implementation of the orders passed by this Court, as affirmed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court. Notional promotions were given to Havildars in relation to
promotions granted to their batchmates. Therefore, he would submit that there is no
infirmity in the combined seniority list that has been published. He would further submit
that without challenging the combined seniority list, the petitioners cannot seek the writ
of mandamus as prayed for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
17. He would further submit that the ‘C’ list of various categories for promotion to
the higher category was published on 25.03.2025, which included the ‘C’ list of Sub-
Inspectors of Police for promotion as Inspectors of Police (General), with an estimated
vacancy of 63 posts, and that there is no discrepancy in the said lists. Such publication
has been made in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in the dispute
between the promoted Havildars and their promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police.
Hence, he would pray this Court to dismiss the writ petitions.
18. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent, supporting
the arguments made by the learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that the
respondents had been given retrospective promotion on par with their batchmates, who
were promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the year 2008, which has been affirmed by
the Apex Court. The ‘C’ list has been drawn by implementing the same. He would
submit that the petitioners, who are directly recruited after the date of promotion of the
Havildars, cannot claim seniority over them.
19. The challenge made by the petitioners would amount to challenging the
promotion that was granted to the Havildars as Sub-Inspectors 17 years ago, which
would not only affect the interests of the promotees, who were promoted prior to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
appointment of the petitioners, but would also amount to varying the orders passed by
this Court, which have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He would submit that
the seniority has been prepared in consonance with Rule 24(e) of the Tamil Nadu
Special Police Subordinate Service Rules and that the private respondents have been
placed appropriately in the said seniority list and have also been rightly included in the
‘C’ list fit for promotion to the post of Inspector General. Hence, he would seek
dismissal of the writ petitions. He would place reliance upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court made in W.P.(MD).No.172 of 2018, dated 17.09.2018, to
contend that the wirt petitions itself are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay
and laches.
20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
either side and perused the materials available on record.
21. The dispute in the present petition with regard to the seniority of the promotee
Sub-Inspectors from the post of Havildars and directly recruited Sub-Inspectors in the
Tamil Nadu Special Police Wing, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Special Police
Subordinate Service Rules, 1978.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
22. Even though it is the case of the petitioners that there are 386 sanctioned posts,
it is the case of the official respondents that out of the 386 posts, only 288 posts were
sanctioned and the remaining posts were temporarily created to meet out the exigencies.
It has also been admitted by the official respondents that 173 posts had been earmarked
for direct recruitment and 115 posts were earmarked for promotion. It is not in dispute
that as per Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, the post
of Sub-Inspectors shall be filled up by the method of appointment in the ratio of 40:60
by promotion from the post of Havildars and direct recruitment respectively.
23. It is further to be noted that there is an admission that there were 163 direct
recruits working as on 31.12.2009 and 173 promotees working as on 31.12.2009, which
would mean that there were more than 58 Havildars working as Sub-Inspectors beyond
their sanctioned strength. It is also admitted that 98 posts of Sub-Inspectors were
temporarily created and that Havildars were promoted against the said 98 vacancies.
24. It is a trite law that promotion to a higher post could be made only from
persons holding a permanent sanctioned vacancy and not from a person holding the post
of the feeder category on temporary basis or in a temporarily created post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
25. Heavy reliance had been placed upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble
Apex Court:
(1) Keshav Chandra Joshi and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272;
(2)A.N.Sehgal and others Vs Raje Ram Sheoran and others, reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 304; and
(3) Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Assn (Direct Recruit) and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346
to contend that if a promotion is made to a substantive vacancy earmarked to be filled up
by direct recruitment, then such promottee cannot claim seniority over the directly
recruited persons and that seniority can be counted only with reference to the vacancies
arising in the permanent sanctioned posts earmarked for promotion.
26. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
(a) Keshav Chandra Joshi and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272:
“24. It is notorious that confirmation of an employee in a substantive
post would take place long years after the retirement. An employee is
entitled to be considered for promotion on regular basis to a higher post if
he/she is an approved probationer in the substantive lower post. An officer
appointed by promotion in accordance with Rules and within quota and on
declaration of probation is entitled to reckon his seniority from the date of
promotion and the entire length of service, though initially temporary, shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
be counted for seniority. Ad hoc or fortuitous appointments on a temporary
or stop gap basis cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority,
even if the appointee was subsequently qualified to hold the post on a
regular basis. To give benefit of such service would be contrary to equality
enshrined in Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution as
unequals would be treated as equals. When promotion is outside the quota,
the seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the
quota, rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion
would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and
seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his
earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the
promotees it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits. The
rule of quota being a statutory one it must be strictly implemented and it is
impermissible for the authorities concerned to deviate from the rule due to
administrative exigencies or expediency. The result of pushing down the
promotees appointed in excess of the quota may work out hardship but it is
unavoidable and any construction otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the
force of statutory rules and would offend Articles 14 and 16(1). Therefore,
the rules must be carefully applied in such a manner as not to violate the
rules or equality assured under Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court
interpreted that equity is an integral part of Article 14. So every attempt
would be made to minimise, as far as possible, inequity. Disparity is
inherent in the system of working out integration of the employees drawn
from different sources, who have legitimate aspiration to reach higher
echelons of service. A feeling of hardship to one, or heart burning to either
would be avoided. At the same time equality is accorded to all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
employees.”
(b) A.N.Sehgal and others Vs Raje Ram Sheoran and others, reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 304:
“12. When an officer is appointed substantively to a cadre post, is
the next question. It is settled law that all the rules should be harmoniously
construed giving life, force and effect to every part of the rule or clause or
word so that no part would be rendered redundant, ineffectual, nugatory or
otiose. Rule 5(1) regulates recruitment to the service from three sources,
namely, direct recruitment, by transfer, and by promotion from Class II
service. Sub-rule (2) thereof prescribes the ratio between the promotees
and others. It says that, “recruitment to the service shall be so regulated
that the number of posts so filled by promotion from Class II service shall
not exceed 50 per cent” of the number of posts in the service excluding the
posts of Assistant Executive Engineers; provided that till such time the
adequate number of Assistant Executive Engineers who are eligible and
considered fit for promotion are available, the actual percentage of officers
promoted from Class II service ‘may be larger than 50 per cent’. A reading
thereof clearly manifests the legislative animation, namely, that the
promotees from Class II service shall not exceed 50 per cent of the posts in
the service. The word ‘shall’ indicates that it is mandatory that the
remaining 50 per cent shall be kept open only to the Assistant Executive
Engineers who were directly recruited but later were found eligible and fit
for promotion as Executive Engineers. Therefore, unless the government
resorts exceptionally with prior permission of Public Service Commission,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
vide Rule 10 to recruitment by transfer of an officer from other service of
the State Government or of the Union, the remaining 50 per cent of the
posts as Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Chief
Engineers shall be occupied only by the direct recruit Assistant Executive
Engineers. It is settled law that prescription of quota for recruitment from
different sources is constitutionally a valid rule.
13. Rule 5(2) limits 50 per cent posts to the promotees from Class II
service and no further, but the proviso to the rule lays down that till
adequate number of Assistant Executive Engineers are available, the rigour
of 50 per cent quota may be relaxed and Class II officers may be promoted
in excess of their quota. What is the intendment of the clause ‘the actual
percentage of officers promoted from Class II service may be larger than
50 per cent’ is the question. The mandate of Rule 5(2) is that the officers
promoted from Class II service shall in no case exceed 50 per cent of the
number of posts in the service. Unless it is relaxed, the appointment and
occupation of the posts by promotees in excess thereof is irregular or
illegal and the government has no power to promote persons from Class II
service to fill in such posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending
Engineers and Chief Engineers. It is common knowledge that direct
recruitment as Assistant Executive Engineer or Executive Engineer in
exceptional circumstances is a tardy process and even after appointment
they have to put in five years service. The balance 50 per cent of the posts
cannot be kept vacant. With a view to keep the wheels of the administration
moving, the proviso carves out an exception and allows the promotees to
occupy temporarily the posts in excess of their quota. In this view the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
contention of Shri Rao that the seniority as Executive Engineer is to be
counted from the date of initial temporary promotion cannot be accepted as
it would allow the promotees to occupy 100 per cent posts of Executive
Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Chief Engineers leaving little
room for Rule 5(2)(a) to operate in full force. The exception would eat
away the flesh and blood of Rule 5(2)(a) freezing the channel of promotion
to the direct recruits to senior posts for a very long time to come. In the
absence of rule of rotation there may be no chance to the direct recruits to
occupy the senior posts. That does not appear to be the intendment, scope
and operation of the proviso. The intendment appears to be that so long as
the direct recruit Assistant Executive Engineer, eligible and considered fit
for promotion is not available, the promotee from Class II service in excess
of the quota is eligible to occupy in officiating capacity the senior posts,
i.e., Executive Engineers and above. The moment direct recruits are
available, they alone are entitled to occupy 50 per cent of their quota posts
and the promotees shall give place to the direct recruits.
19. It is settled law that appointment to a post in accordance with the
rules is a condition precedent and no one can claim appointment to a post
or promotion, as of right, but has a right to be considered in accordance
with the rules. Appointment by promotion or direct recruitment, therefore,
must be in accordance with the rules so as to become a member of the
service in a substantive capacity. Seniority is to be fixed in accordance with
the principles laid down in the rules.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
(c) Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Assn (Direct Recruit) and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346:
“37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or
seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been
borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed
validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra
Joshi v. Union of India [1992 Supp (1) SCC 272 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 694 :
(1993) 24 ATC 545] held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority
would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering
the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular
only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be
counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or
subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotees, it would
not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits. The rule of quota being a
statutory one, it must be strictly implemented and it is impermissible for the
authorities concerned to deviate from the rule due to administrative
exigencies or expediency. The result of pushing down the promotees
appointed in excess of the quota may work out hardship, but it is
unavoidable and any construction otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the
force of the statutory rules and would offend Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
27. As stated supra, it has been admitted by the official respondents that
promotions have been made beyond sanctioned strength. For better appreciation, the
relevant tabular column given in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments extracted supra, had categorically
held that a promotee in a substantive vacancy earmarked for direct recruits cannot claim
seniority over the direct recruits and his claim for seniority could only be reckoned from
the date on which a vacancy arose substantively within the quota earmarked for
promotion.
29. In the present case, from the facts placed by the official respondents, it could
be seen that 98 posts have been created for promoting Havildars and such 98 posts have
been sanctioned only temporarily. Such promottes holding the temporarily sanctioned
posts cannot be automatically brought into the seniority list against the permanently
sanctioned vacancies, that too, within 60% earmarked for direct recruitment.
30. That apart, such persons holding the temporarily created post cannot also
claim to equate themselves in holding the permanent posts of Sub-Inspectors for them
being included in the ‘C’ list of Sub-Inspectors fit for promotion to the post of Inspector
(G). If that is sought to be allowed, then the ratio that is to be maintained as per the rules
in the post of Sub-Inspectors would be violated and the rights of directly recruited
persons for promotion also stand obliterated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, had held that even a
regular promotion outside the promotional quota and within the quota earmarked for
direct recruitment would not entitle the promotee to walk over the direct recruits and
would have give way to the direct recruits in the matter of seniority.
32. In the present case, an attempt is being made to place the Sub-Inspectors, who
are holding the posts so created temporarily above the direct recruits cannot be said to be
fair.
33. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of
the petitioners is well founded. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that
the following directions would be necessary in the interest of justice.
(a) A combined seniority list as of 31.12.2011 shall be prepared by
placing 115 promotee Havildars and 173 directly recruited Sub-Inspectors.
(b) The 115 Havildars shall be drawn from the ‘C’ list that had been
prepared of Havildars fit for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector, based
upon seniority, pursuant to the judicial pronouncement resolving the
disputes of seniority among them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
(c) The combined seniority of the promotees and direct recruits shall
be made as per Rule 24(e) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service
Rules.
(d) The remaining Havildars, who have been promoted as Sub-
Inspectors, from serial number 116 onwards, shall be placed in seniority as
and when vacancies arise in the 115 posts earmarked for promotion, on and
from the date on which such vacancy arises.
(e) They shall be deemed to have been appointed in the permanent
promotional vacancy from the date on which such vacancy has arisen and
thereafter placed in seniority based upon such promotion.
(f) Such exercise shall be carried out by the 6th respondent / The
Armed Police Promotion Board, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
34. With the aforesaid directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
09.01.2026
(1/2)
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kak
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home (Police-III) Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Head of Police Force, Police Head Quarters,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Additional Director General of Police,
Armed Police,
No.10, Lutens Garden,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.
Email Id: [email protected]
4.The Inspector General of Police,
Armed Police,
Headquarters,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010
Email Id: [email protected]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Armed Police,
Headquarters,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.
6.The Armed Police Promotion Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Armed Police,
Headquarters,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.
7.The Commandant,
TSP VI Battalion,
Reserve line Post,
Madurai – 14,
Email Id – [email protected]
8.The Commandant,
TSP IX Battalion,
Manimuthar,
Tirunelveli District,
Email Id : [email protected]
9.The Commandant,
TSP XIV Battalion,
Palani, Dindigul District,
Email Id: [email protected]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.24445 of 2024 & 8810 of 2025
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
kak
& 8810 of 2025
(1/2)
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:51:08 pm )
