The authorities competent are empowered to consider the merits and demerits of individual cases independently, and promotion should be granted based on seniority, merit, and the rules in force.

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner initially filed WP.No.24322 of 2010, for a declaration to declare GO.Ms.No.1396, Home Department dated 03.10.2007 is null and void as far as the petitioner is concerned, and declare inclusion of the petitioner's name in SI.No.19 in G.O.Ms.No.504, Home Department dated 29.06.2009 as illegal, null and void, unwanted and inoperative as far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent to grant opportunity to the petitioner by including his name in the promotion list or individually and the promote the petitioner fit for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police by fixing the seniority of the petitioner with effect from 07.02.2005.

2. This Court passed an order on 09.11.2010 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder :

''2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Category-I) in the year 1987. He served in various places and was promoted as Inspector of Police during the year 1997 and was posted in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, City Special Unite-III, Chennai. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Police and served as Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB, Ramanathapuram District. According to the petitioner, he has secured several rewards and he was conferred with Honorary Membership by the Indian Academy of Forensic Science, kolkatta and the Bureau of Police Research and Development, New Delhi, suggested that his name may be considered for upgradation to imporve the Research oriented Academic Activities, pursuant to which the Director of Vigilence and Anti-Coruuption, Chennai forwarded a proposal to the Secretary, Home Department, for out of Accelerated promotion Committee as per the guidelines given by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.468, Home ( Police-V) Department dated 19.03.1996 for the performance in securing one gold and one bronze medal in Scientific Aids to Investigation competition during the 44th All India Police Duty Meet-2000. The petitioner was subsequently given higher post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I in the Tamil Nadu Police Service by giving out of turn promotion by relaxation of Rule 4 (B) of the Special Rules for Tamil nadu Police Services in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The said promotion was given by recruitment by transfer. The petitioner assumed charge as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Egmore Range on 01.02.2003 and completed the probation on 07.02.2005. The petitioner was also awarded several commendations and medals during his tenure from 2002 to 2009 including Chief Minister Medal for distinguished service. After issuance of the impugned Government orders, the petitioner was not given further promotion and the said Government orders were challenged by one K. Mohan in WP.No.17312 of 2008 before this Court and one M. Chandrasekar in WP.Nos.10290 and 12725 of 2009 and some other persons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said writ petitions were allowed by this Court. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, Iam of the considered view that the refusal to accord promotion to the petitioner to the post of Superintendent of Police citing G.O.ms.No.1396, Home [pol-1A] Dept., dated 03.10.2007 is wholly unjustified. Consequently, the GO.Ms.No.1396, dated 03.10.2007, so far as denying promotion to the petitioner is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Consequently, I direct the respondents to consider including the name of the petitioner in the panel of promotion, fit for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police from the year, which he is eligible but for G.O.ms.No.1396 dated 03.10.2007. The said exercise has to be carried out by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of th