[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary To ... vs A Kathirvel on 13 March, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Review Application(W) Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
Rev.Appl.(W)No.17 of 2026:-
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home Police III Department, Secretariat, St.
George Fort, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director General of Police
Mylapore, Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. A Kathirvel
Home Police III Department, Secretariat, St.
George Fort, Chennai-600 009.
2. N Hemamala
D/o.K.B.Nehru, No.234, Shanthi lllam,Ram
Nagar 6th Street,S.S.Colony, Madurai-16
3. K. Murugeswari
D/o. M. Krishnan, B2, Vaijanthi visthana
enclave, Vilangudi, Madurai-18
4. A. Bama
D/o. Venkataraman, No.15A, Rathanapuram,
Jaihindpuram 2nd street, Madurai-11
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
5. M. Shanthi
D/o. K. Muthusamy, No. 4635, Villapuram
housing board, Madurai
6. P.K. Regina
D/o. Murugesan, G3, 157, Comfort apartment,
Kurinji nagar, Athikulam, Madurai-14
7. M. Chezhian
S/o. Movendran, No.31, TNHB quarters,
Pothigai nagar, Madurai-18
8. D. Saravanakumar
S/o. P. Dhavamani, No.58, Viswanatha nagar,
K.Pudur, Madurai-7
9. S. Kowsalya
D/o. V. Subbaiah, No. 18, Adi Eswara nagar,
Ponmeni garden, Uthangudi, Madurai
10.K. Mariappan
S/o. R. Kanmani, No.13/2949-3, North 1st
street, Adthmasamy nagar, Pathinamkathen,
Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram (DT)
11.S.R.G. Thayal
Inspector Of Police, Kannagi Nagar Police
Station, Tambaram Commissionerate,
Tambaram.
12.C. Muthelu
Inspector Of Police, Modern Control Room,
Chennai.
13.S. Saravanan
Inspector Of Police, Shankar Nagar Police
Station, Tambaram Commissionerate,
Tambaram.
Page 2 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
14.K. Pugalendhi
Inspector Of Police, Sivakasi Town Police
Station, Virudhunagar District
15.K. Kottaiswamy
Inspector Of Police, Keeraithurai (l And O)
Madurai City, Madurai.
16.Chandru
Inspector Of Police, Selaiyur Police Station,
Tambaram Commissionerate, Tambaram.
17.Deepak Kumar
Inspector Of Police, Pallikaranai Crime,
Tambaram Commissionerate, Tambaram.
18.M. Saravanan,
Inspector of Police, Achirupakkam Police
Station, Chengalpattu District.
19.V.J. Muthukumar,
Inspector of Police, Mathuranthagam Police
Station, Chengalpattu District.
20.S. Kumaran,
Inspector of Police, ACTU, Kancheepuram
District.
21.3 Alexandar,
SP Inspector, Chengalpattu District.
22.Senthilvelkumar,
Inspector of Police, Earaniel Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
23.Anantharajan,
Inspector of Police, AIG, L and O Office, Chief
Office, Chennai.
Page 3 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
24.S. Rajesh Kannan,
Inspector Of Police, Special Intelligence Unit,
Sbcid, Ramanathapuram.
25.S. Senthilvel Kumar,
Inspector Of Police, Eraniel Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
26.S. Ramesh Kannan,
Inspector Of Police, Civil Supplies Cid,
Pollachi Unit, Coimbatore District.
27.V. Balamurugan,
Inspector Of Police, Thoothukudi North Police
Station, Thoothukudi.
28.R. Mathavan,
Inspector Of Police, Sankarankovil Taluk
Police Station, Tenkasi District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule-1 r/w Section 114 of Code of
Civil Procedure, to review the order dated 20.11.2025 made in W.P.
(MD)No.22457 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms.M.Sneha
Special Counsel
For Respondents
For R1 to 10, 12,
14, 16 to 28 : No appearance
For R11, 13 & 15 : Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi, Senior Counsel
For Mr.L.Palanimuthu
Page 4 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
COMMON ORDER
These Review Applications have been filed to review the order
dated 20.11.2025, passed by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in
W.P.Nos.28009, 28105, 28630, 28716, 30969 of 2024 & W.P(MD).Nos.22388,
22457 of 2024, thereby setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 29.08.2024
and the combined seniority list dated 12.09.2024.
2. The Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by
the Review Applicants dated 29.08.2024, thereby stating that orders have
already been issued in G.O.Ms.No.556, Home (Police-III) Department dated
31.12.2020 in which, the Director General of Police was directed to revise the
seniority of the directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police during the year 1997-
1998 as per the marks obtained by them in the Police Training College and to
prepare a fresh seniority list in a combined manner by clubbing the candidates
sent for training in two different batches as one batch, is perfectly valid in the
eye of law and will stand the test of law. This Court issued direction on the basis
of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Ranjith Singh and other Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu in S.L.P(c)No.5137 &
5138 of 2021 by an order dated 01.05.2025, as follows :-
“9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this
Court is inclined to pass the following directions:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
(i) In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, the impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2024 and
the combined seniority list dated 12.09.2024 are hereby set
aside.
(ii) The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to revise the
seniority list as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
by an order dated 01.05.2025 in S.LP(C)No.5137 and 5138 of
2021.
(iii) The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to treat the direct
recruitees for the year 1997-98 as two batches viz., first batch
of the year 1999 and the second batch of the year 2000.
(iv) It is made clear that seniority of the candidates shall
be fixed based on their marks secured in examination conducted
by the Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board.”
To review the said order, the present Review Applications have been filed by the
Review Applicants.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Review
Applicants submits that the direction issued in sub clause (iii) in paragraph 9 of
the order is contrary to the direction issued in sub clause (ii) & (iv). Therefore,
there is an error apparent on the face of records and it shall be reviewed. He also
raised the ground that the selection for the post of Sub Inspector of Police was
made in two phases for the year 1997-98 batch and the candidates were sent for
training in two batches viz., one in the year 1999 and another in the year 2000.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
Those candidates were selected in zone wise selection through the same
examination under the very same notification on the same day but, they were
sent for training in two batches due to administrative exigencies in conducting
training to all the selected candidates. 50% of the selected candidates in each
category in each zone were sent for training in first batch commenced from
16.04.1999 and the remaining persons were sent for training in second batch
commenced from 22.05.2000. If the seniority of the directly recruited Sub
Inspectors of Police for the year 1997-98 is prepared batch wise, in pursuance to
the order passed by this Court, it would amount to contempt of the order passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranjith Singh and others
Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that
since the candidates were selected from single examination, they shall be treated
as a single unit only and they cannot be separated into two batches. Therefore,
the concept of fixing seniority based on batch wise becomes infructuous.
4. Per contra, Mr.M.A.Gouthaman, learned counsel appearing for
some of the respondents in Rev.Appln(W).No.25 of 2026 filed counter and
submitted that the review applications itself are not maintainable as there is no
error apparent in the order passed by this Court. Therefore, there is no ground to
review the order passed by this Court. It would amount to re-appreciation of
facts and it cannot be done by way of review. If at all there is any grievance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
over the order passed by this Court, the applicants can file an appeal. He further
submits that the first batch of Sub Inspectors of Police were sent for training on
16.04.1999 based on their meritorious marks, which means the classification of
the two batches itself was based on the marks secured by the candidates in the
qualifying examination. Therefore, this Court rightly issued direction to treat the
direct recruitees for the year 1997-1998 as two batches viz., first batch of the
year 1999 and the second batch of the year 2000. Now the Review Applicants
want to have one seniority list which was actually challenged before this Court
in the batch of Writ Petitions, as the first batch of highest marks scorers were
sent for training on 16.04.1999 and the second batch was sent to training after a
lapse of more than one year i.e., on 22.05.2000. Therefore, the Applicants
cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.
4.1. He further submitted that even assuming that there should be one
seniority list for both the batches, again the highest scorers of the first batch will
always be above the second batch. It does not make any difference and
therefore, the considered ground in the Writ Petitions and the settled law cannot
be reargued and reviewed. The fulcrum of the matter is about treating two
different batches based on the marks secured and the date of joining duty and
upon considering all the submissions, this Court has passed a reasoned order.
Even according to the Review Applicants, the candidates who secured higher
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
marks were sent for training in the first batch and those candidates who secured
lesser marks than the first batch candidates were sent for training in the second
batch. Therefore, this Court rightly directed the Director General of Police to
prepare seniority list treating the two batches separately and it doesn’t warrant
any review once again.
5. Mr.R.John Joseph, learned counsel appearing for some of the
respondents in Rev.Appln(W).No.25 of 2026 filed counter and submitted that as
directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the seniority must be fixed
solely on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying
examination during the selection process. In fact, some of them filed
Miscellaneous Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in in M.P.
Diary Nos.49489 & 54019 of 2025 in S.L.P.(c) No.5137 & 5138 of 2021
seeking clarification. These petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India by an order dated 26.09.2025, by observing that those
applications are seeking a substantive modification of the judgment and it is not
permissible in the miscellaneous application. It was further held that judicial
verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and
weather. A disturbing trend has emerged in this Court where repeated
miscellaneous or review applications are being filed after the pronouncement of
a final judgment. Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
discouraged. Therefore, the present review also has been filed in the same
manner to modify the order passed by this Court. There is absolutely no error
apparent on the face of record and as such the order passed by this Court cannot
be reviewed in any angle.
6. Mr.A.M.M.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
in Rev.Appl(W)No.29 of 2026 filed counter and submitted that, based on the
order passed by this Court, the Government issued order in G.O.Ms.No.93 dated
06.02.2012 restoring the seniority in the 1999 batch with refixation of seniority
based on the marks secured by them in the selection process. Consequently, the
Director General of Police issued proceedings dated 08.10.2016 thereby fixing
the seniority in the post of Sub Inspector of Police by including their names in
the appropriate place in the 1999 batch. Thereafter, they were given promotion
to the post of Inspector of Police. Even according to the Review Applicants, the
selected Sub Inspector of Police were sent for training based on their marks
secured in the selection process. Therefore, this Court rightly passed order and it
doesn’t require any review.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
7. Mr.M.A.Gouthaman, learned counsel appearing for some of the
respondents in Rev.Appln(W).No.25 of 2026, relied upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Northern India Caterers (India)
Ltd vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi reported in 1980 (2) SCC 167 and the relevant
portions of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
“8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a
review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the
purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The
normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is
final, and departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make
it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.For
instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material
statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will
review its judgment. G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta.The Court may
also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and
it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice.
O. N. Mahindroo v. Distt. Judge Delhi &Anr.Power to review its
judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Art. 137
of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions
of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Art.
145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is
entertained only on a ground mentioned in XLVII rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the
ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature
of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding
cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the
finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be
reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent
mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial
fallibility." Sow Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib.
9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so
assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned
Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to
appear for the respondent, was never brought to our attention
when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the
judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the
record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed
on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be
said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the
Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard
to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an
error apparent on the face of the record.”
8. Citing the said judgment, learned Counsel contended that the
review application itself is not maintainable as there is no error apparent in the
order passed by this Court. This argument cannot be countenanced to and the
judgment cited supra shall not be squarely applicable to the case on hand for the
reason that though this Court by an order dated 20.11.2025, issued the above
said directions in a batch of Writ Petitions directing the Review Applicants to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
treat the direct recruitees for the year 1997-1998 as two batches viz., first batch
of the year 1999 and the second batch of the year 2000, it is an error on the face
of records as it would lead to the contempt of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ranjith Singh and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and
hence it is liable to be reviewed as rightly pointed out by the Review Applicants.
9. Further, based on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, dated 01.05.2025, the Government passed ordered in
G.O.Ms.No.556 Home (Police-III) Department dated 31.12.2020, thereby
directing the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board to recast all
gradation list issued from the year 1995 in respect of direct recruitment which
includes 20% in-service candidates recruited directly to the post of Sub
Inspector of Police for granting seniority on the basis of the marks obtained in
the qualifying examination and to send the same to the Director General of
Police. On receipt of the revised mark list, the Director General of Police was
directed to implement the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that those who were not selected in
the recruitment process in the year 1997-1998 for the post of Sub Inspector of
Police, challenged the said selection process before the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in a batch of Applications, on the ground that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
the selection was made zone-wise under the same notification. Therefore, the
non-selected candidates, who secured even higher marks than the selected
candidate but in different zone, are also eligible to the post of Sub Inspector of
Police. Therefore, the zone-wise selection is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. The Tribunal by an order dated 19.07.2001, held that
selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police has to be made by a single
method for the entire State. There is no such rule of zone-wise selection wherein
each zone is considered as a separate unit and the merits of the candidates of a
particular zone alone is considered. It was further observed that most of the
applicants have secured higher marks than some of the persons selected from
other ranges. Therefore, ends of justice will be met, if the applicants are also
given appointment. Finally, those who have secured more marks than the
selected candidates were allowed to participate in the selection process for the
post of the Sub Inspector of Police.
11. It was challenged before this Court and the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Petition in W.P.No.17639 of 2001 etc., by
an order dated 25.02.2004 held as follows :-
“73. In such circumstances, we pass the following order:
i) The Selection of both of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Men
and Women) pursuant to the selection made for the vacancies
notified for the year 1997-98 by resorting to zone-wise selection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
was invalid inasmuch as such zone-wise selection was
impermissible under Special Rules governed for Tamil Nadu
Police Sub-ordinate Service.
ii) Having regard to the fact that such selection and
appointment came to be made as early as far back as in the year
1999, at this distant point of time, applying the ratio of the
Honble Supreme Court referred to in earlier paragraphs
(i.e.para 61 to 64), we are not inclined to set aside the said
selection.
iii) Even as regards the 53 candidates with reference to
whom the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption has
submitted its final report holding that their selection was tainted
with mal-practices, we hold that while their appointments
cannot be set aside at the present juncture, their continuation in
service will depend upon the final outcome of the criminal
proceedings pursuant to the final report dated 18-6-2004.
iv) The concerned 53 persons should be informed about
our orders relating to them by a specific notice to be issued to
them.
v) While modifying the order of the Tribunal, we hold that
from amongst the applicants who are the contesting respondents
both Men and Women covered by W.P.Nos.17639 to 17660 of
2001, 17822 to 17827, 17830, 17899 to 17903 and 18349 to
18356 of 2003, such of those contesting respondents who have
secured the lowest cut off marks in the category, namely, OC,
BC, MBC, SC and ST after the interview, should be directed to
undergo medical test and after following the usual formality of
police verification about their antecedents, and in the event of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
those contesting respondents ultimately, coming out successful,
should be placed on probation and sent for police training
which should be followed by their appointment and
regularization as per the prescribed regulations.
vi) Such of the contesting respondents who were not
called for interview, shall be called for interview and after
coming out successful in the interview, if their cut off marks is
more than the last cut off marks in the respective category, they
shall be directed to undergo medical test and after following the
usual formality of police verification about their antecedents,
and in the event of those contesting respondents ultimately,
coming out successful, should be placed on probation and sent
for police training which should be followed by their
appointment and regularization as per the prescribed
regulations.
vii) The above said direction will also hold good in
respect of the applicants who have filed O.A.Nos.10211 and
10324 of 1998, 1354, 4693 and 6796 of 1999, 955, 4212, 5668,
5669, 5671, 6659 and 8616 of 200 0, 2557, 6301 and 6746 of
2001, 1920, 2189, 2286, 2424, 3073, 3633, 3 745, 3751, 3999,
4194, 5001, 5142, 5518, 5546, 5687, 5688, 6412, 6429 , 6458
and 6459 of 2002 and 18, 19, 129,330, 388, 389, 796, 2130 of 2
viii) The other Original Applications, namely, O.A.Nos.
2579, 2715, 3 864, 3929, 3930, 4084 of 2003 and 26, 78, 207,
1625 and 1626 of 2004 as well as W.P.Nos.32253, 32255,
32499, 33155, 33136, 22344, 22015, 2 3063 and 34275 of 2004
are dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
ix) The petitioners-State Government are directed to take
steps against the concerned Officers in accordance with the
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, based on the outcome of the
criminal proceedings.
x) We direct the petitioners to follow the above said
directions and complete the above said exercise and issue
appropriate orders as regards the final outcome within four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
12. Thus, it is clear that the selection of both batches of Sub Inspector
of Police by resorting zone-wise selection was declared as invalid. However, the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court declined to set aside the entire selection
and directed the candidates who were not called for interview to participate in
the selection process. If they fulfill other requirements, it was also directed that
they may be selected for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Thus, it is clear
that those applicants had secured more marks than the candidates who were
selected in different zone. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court declared that the zone wise selection is invalid and
those candidates who secured more marks than the selected candidates can be
selected in due process. Accordingly, they were selected for the post of Sub
Inspector of Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
13. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Review
Applicants relied upon the judgment reported in (2015) 14 SCC 221 in the case
of A.Raghu Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors., in which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held as follows :-
“26. From the factual position depicted herein above, it
is not possible for us to accept, that the candidates, who were
deputed for training on 15.7.1991, and those deputed for
training on 14.6.1992 to fulfill the deficiency, can be described
as two different batches. The selection process having been
joint, and in furtherance of the same notification dated
22.1.1991 (issued by the Recruitment Board), it is inevitable for
us to conclude, that the candidates deputed to the two different
courses of training (on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992) were
essentially candidates belonging to a singular batch, who were
selected through a common process of selection. In fact, the
instant inference, insofar as the issue of inter-se seniority is
concerned, is inevitable, as the dates on which the candidates
were deputed for training, are inconsequential, so far as Rule
15 is concerned.”
14. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in the case of M.P.Saraswathy & ors Vs. R.Paranthaman & ors in
W.A.No.732 of 2022 dated 08.11.2023, as follows :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
“15. We have considered all the materials and the
contentions relevant to the issue under determination. The
contention of the appellants that the selection being range wise
and hence, it is not a single selection process, is not acceptable.
The notification was for selection of 10000 Grade-II Constables
and the appointment subsequent thereto was by a joint process.
The division of the candidates on range/district wise for
administrative exigencies will not alter the nature of the
selection process or the applicability of the rule to which the
selectees have subjected themselves to. Further, as per Rule 37
of the TNSPSS, which deals with the Area of Service, a member
of service shall be liable to serve in any part of the State of
Tamil Nadu or when so ordered by the state government in any
part of the India, outside such State. Therefore, the contention
that selection was range wise has no significance, more so when
it comes to fixation of seniority. A candidate is sent for training
after the selection. There is no rule which states that the
candidates with higher marks in the initial selection will be sent
for training first. The marks secured by them in the selection is
not a yardstick to divide the candidates into different categories
for sending to training. As per Rule 24 (d), for the purpose of
fixing the seniority, the marks secured by them at the
Recruitment School alone is relevant, while so, it is not for the
State to create an artificial division by picking and choosing the
candidates for training based on the marks scored by them in
the selection. Once the candidates are part of same notification
and selection, the date on which they are sent for training is
irrelevant…...”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
15. In the cases on hand, the Sub Inspector of Police who were selected
under the very same notification of the year 1997-1998 by zone wise and
subsequently the range/zone wise selection was also set aside by the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal and the same was also confirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court and they were sent for training by two batches. Therefore,
the above judgments are squarely applicable to the present cases. Thus, the
selection of Sub Inspector of Police under the very same notification by
range/zone wise has no significance, when it comes to fixation of seniority.
Further, there is no rule while states that the candidates with higher marks will
be sent for training first. The mark secured by the candidates is not a yardstick
to divide them into different categories for sending them to training.
16. In view of the above discussions, the direction issued by this Court
by an order dated 20.11.2025, in the paragraph No.9 sub clause (iii) alone is
reviewed and the following direction is issued in lieu of the same:-
(iii) the Review Applicants are directed to prepare a
combined seniority list for the candidates who were recruited to
the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-1998
considering them as a single batch irrespective of the fact that
they were sent for training as two different batches in the year
1999 and 2000.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
17. Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2025, passed by this Court in a
batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.28009 of 2024 etc., is reviewed and all the
Review Applications (W) are disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.
13.03.2026
(1/3)
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Note : Registry is directed to
incorporate cause title for all
the cases and issue order copy.
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
Rev.Appln(W).Nos.17, 25 to 30 & 58 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
Common order
in Review Application(W) Nos.17, 25 to 36 & 58 of 2026
13.03.2026
(1/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:16 pm )
