Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
C. Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Director General of Police, Tamilnadu – Respondent
ORDER :
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondent to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 28.01.2019 for fixation of seniority of the petitioner along with those who were recruited in the year 1999 i.e., from 24.05.1999 within a reasonable time.
2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable. He came out successful in all stages of selection and his name was included in the provisional list. Though the petitioner was selected, he was not appointed into service on the ground that a Criminal Case was pending against him in connection with Crime No.584/1996 on the file of Otteri Police Station. The petitioner paid a fine of Rs.100/- on 06.05.1996 for offence under Section 75 of Madras City Police Act pending on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. The petitioner states that he neither appeared before any Court nor paid the fine amount.
3. The petitioner challenged his non-selection before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7107 of 1999. The Tribunal directed the Recruitment Board to issue an appointment order. The
The decision highlights the importance of character and antecedent verification for uniformed services, the finality of the Selection Committee's decision, and the inability to claim retrospective se....
The verification of character and antecedents is crucial in determining suitability for appointment, and the rules in force must be followed for fixing seniority.
A candidate cannot be deprived of his entitlement due to an action taken by the authorities which was wrong and held to be wrong by a Court of law.
Limitation does not apply to rectifying orders resulting from mistakes of fact, allowing restoration of seniority for a police constable initially disqualified due to medical reasons.
The petitioner was entitled to notional seniority on par with the 2008 batch of Sub-Inspectors of Police based on previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, as well as a Supreme Court preced....
The judgment established that an appointment made as a result of court directions and benevolence, rather than merit, does not entitle the appointee to claim retrospective effect to the appointment o....
A candidate wrongfully denied appointment is entitled to seniority from the date of eligibility, despite not receiving monetary benefits for the intervening period.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
