The main legal point established is that seniority and service records can entitle an individual to promotion, and the deletion of provisions for promotion based on Range Promotion Board tests can influence the court's decision in favor of the petitioner.

1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent/Director General of Police dated 12.5.2000 and for a direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as Sub Inspect of Police (Armed Reserve) from the date of his initial promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) and grant all service and monetary benefits to him.

2.1. The petitioner has joined in the District Armed Reserve, Chennai City as Police Constable on 13.9.1979 and was promoted as Head Constable on 15.5.1985. The petitioner was declared probation on 14.5.1987 and was promoted as Reserve Sub Inspector from 1.1.1998 temporarily. It was due to the non availability of the vacancies, he was reverted as Head Constable with effect from 16.6.1998.

2.2. The post of Sub Inspector of Police, Category-II is categorised in Class I, Category-II of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. As per the Rules, the appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, Category-II should be either by promotion from the eligible Head Constables or by direct recruitment of persons from any other class or category of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules or recruitment from any other service by transfer.

2.3. As per the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.9377 of 1998, the proportion for appointment by direct recruitment and promotion is in the ratio of 60: 40. For promotion from Head Constable to Sub Inspector of Police in Category-II, there was no regular Range Promotion Board conducted by the Department every year. However, there was a Range Promotion Board in the year 1987.

2.4. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2176 of 1991 and batch cases, in the order dated 7.8.1992, has formulated a basis for the promotion between direct recruits and promotees and the said scheme framed by the Tribunal was restricted to the persons who had acted as Sub Inspectors temporarily or persons senior to them who had acted as such, among those who had appeared for 1985 selection and for those who have been acting as Sub Inspectors temporarily even before the said date.

2.5. The Range Promotion Board, which was conducted on 20.11.1991, prepared a 'C' List on merit consisting of 34 persons who were promoted as Sub Inspectors. It is stated that M/s.C.Shumugam, Sorimuthu, S.Natesan and R.Appukuttan, who have been working as Head Constables in Armed Reserve, have sought to quash the order of the Commissioner of Police dated 31.12.1991, by which a list of Head Constables of Armed Reserve, Madras City Police, fit for inclusion in the 'C' List of the Armed Reserve Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors, in O.A.No.267 of 1992, in which there was a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the individuals on merits and file a reply to the Tribunal.

2.6. The Personnel and Administrative Department of the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.1993 with detailed instructions for preparation of panel for appointment by promotion/recruitment and transfer. On a challenge made by the said four persons to the Range Promotion Board conducted on 20.11.1991, the Tribunal issued direction not to conduct any Range Promotion Board and directed to appoint eligible Head Constables as Sergeants (Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Police)) based on seniority. Even after such direction, no seniority list was prepared among the eligible Head Constables.

2.7. It is the complaint of the petitioner that even after such direction, the respondents have not promoted the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police while filling up 40% vacancies available in the department and instead resorted to direct recruitment of Sub Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) from the open market and that was also challenged before the Tribunal in the batch of cases in O.A.Nos.5785, 6580 and 9377 of 1998. Even at the time of admission, a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner and others for promotion aga