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 seniority without actual appointment and service.

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 order was not implemented and the petitioner filed Contempt Petition in C.P.No.72 of 2001, seeking for a direction to appoint him as Grade-II Police Constable with retrospective effect from 21.05.1999, the date on which, the other candidates were selected along with him and commenced their training. The Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 05.11.2001, issued a direction to the Commissioner of Police to give posting order to the petitioner and send the petitioner for training. Finally, the petitioner was issued with an appointment order dated 21.09.2006 and he was sent for training. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Chennai City Police and upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable in September 2016 and now he is working in Taluk Police establishment.

4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he was selected in the process of selection conducted in the year 1999. The individuals selected along with the petitioner were sent for training on 24.05.1999. But, the petitioner was sent for training after a delay of 4 ½ years and he was appointed in service only on 21.09.2006. The delay occurred at the instance of the Police Department despite the directions of the Court. Meanwhile, the batch mates of the petitioner completed the services of about 4 years and therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to fix his seniority along with his batch mates.

5. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was selected in the recruitment process and he was not appointed on the ground that a Criminal Case was pending against him. After verification of character and antecedents and regarding the pendency of the Criminal Case, the respondent has not considered the case of the writ petitioner. Thus, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and there was a delay in implementing the orders of the Tribunal and the said delay, which is a volition of the respondent cannot be a ground to deprive the right of the petitioner from getting his seniority on par with his batch mates.

6. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Dinesh Kumar in Appeal (Civil) No.84 of 2008 dated 08.01.2008 and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

“31. In the result, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C).1840 of 2007 is dismissed, while the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C).No.14939 of 2007 is allowed. The Judgment of the High Court dated 22nd September 2005, impugned in the said appeal, is set aside and the concerned respondents are directed to take steps to issue appointment letters to the appellants in the said appeals subject to fulfillment of other conditions by them. It is a