The Original Application in O.A.No.1889 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.

.2. Heard Mr.Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu

.Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Recruitment to the post of Grade – II Police Constables took place in various years. In this case, I am concerned with the recruitment to the post of Grade – II Police Constables that took place in the year 1984. The recruitment of Grade – II Police Constables was made in one stroke in 1984, but they were made as two different batches for sending them to training. One batch, consisting of 940 personnel were sent to training on 01.08.1984. Since the required police recruitment school was not available, another batch was sent on 210. 1984. Both the persons were upgraded as Grade – I Police Constables with effect from 22.07.1997 and thereafter, they were further upgraded as Head Constables from 22.07.2002. However, the persons who were sent for training on 31.08.1984 were notionally upgraded from 25.07.1995 instead of from 22.07.1997 as Grade – I Police Constables and they were given the benefit of upgradation in the post of Head Constables with effect from 25.07.2000 instead of 22.07.2002 by G.O.Ms.No.1247, Home Department, dated 210. 2004.

.4. Though the petitioner was recruited in the year 1984, he was sent for training in the second batch on 210. 1984. The persons belonging to his batch were not granted the benefit of notional upgradation from 25.07.1995 as Grade – I Police Constables and as Head Constables with effect from 25.07.2000 as given to the persons, who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. It is the case of the petitioner that it was not his fault for not being sent for the training that commenced from 31.08.1984. He should be granted the same benefit as given to the persons who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. It is further stated that the Government granted upgradation for all Grade – II Police Constables, taking recruitment before 31st December of the year as cut off date in other cases. But in 1984 alone, they made discrimination by granting benefit to one batch and denying the same to another batch that was also recruited in the year 1984 itself. It is also stated that three Grade – II Police Constables who were sent for training along with the petitioner on 210. 1984 approached this Court to consider them for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as the others who were sent for training on 31.08.1984 were considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. They obtained interim order to participate in the selection process and they were also selected. Ultimately, their writ petitions were allowed by this Court in W.P.Nos.344, 347 and 391 of 2006 by order dated 13.04.2006. It is stated that the petitioners prayer is not for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and his prayer is for upgradation as Grade–I Police Constable with effect from 25.07.1995 notionally and Head Constable with effect from 25.07.2000 notionally as given to the other persons who were recruited along with him but sent for training in the earlier batch on 31.08.1984.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced an additional typed set of papers containing various letters written by the Director General of Police to the Government recommending equal treatment to the persons who were sent for training on 210. 1984 on par with the persons who were sent for training on 31.08.1984.

6. Based on such letters and the judgment referred to above, the petitioner prays for notional upgradation as Grade – I Police Constable with effect from 25.07.1995 and as Head Constable with effect from 25.07.2000, in the present writ petition.

7. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, the first respondent herein, filed the reply affidavit stating that since the petitioner was sent for training on 210. 1984, he