IMPORTANT POINT
Retrospective promotions in public service must adhere to established procedures and cannot disrupt settled seniority.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

[PRAYER in W.A.No.1118/2020: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 15.03.2019 made in W.P.No.18460 of 2013 allow these writ appeals.

PRAYER in W.A.No.1119/2020: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 15.03.2019 made in W.P.No.18459 of 2013 allow these writ appeals.

PRAYER in W.A.No.1122/2020: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 15.03.2019 made in W.P.No.18461 of 2013 allow these writ appeals.

PRAYER in W.A.No.1120/2020: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 15.03.2019 made in W.P.No.20415 of 2013 allow these writ appeals.

PRAYER in W.A.No.1121/2020: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 15.03.2019 made in W.P.No.20413 of 2013 allow these writ appeals.]

The State preferred present appeals challenging the writ order granting retrospective promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in favour of the respondents.

2. The respondents were appointed as Grade-II Police Constable (Armed Reserve) in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. The respondents were promoted to the post of Head Constable (Armed Reserve). The next avenue promotion is Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve). The case of the respondents are that the Range Promotion Board Test was not conducted periodically and there was an enormous delay on the part of the authorities in conducting the Promotion Board Test. The Range Promotion Board Test was abolished by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1055, Home (Police.III) Department dated 01.11.2006. Thereafter, promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police could be considered based on the eligibility and seniority.

3. It is not disputed between the parties that the respondents were transferred to Motor Transport Wing of the Police Department. During the relevant period of time, the Motor Transport Wing of the Police Department maintained separate seniority list. Therefore, the respondents and the other Head Constables, who were deputed to Motor Transport Wing were not called for to appear before Range Promotion Board.

4. The batch mates of the respondents participated in the Range Promotion Board Test and promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2000. The respondents were promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2005. These Head Constables deputed to Motor Transport Wing of Police Department submitted representations to promote them with retrospective effect from the date on which the Head Constables (Armed Reserve) were promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police after undergoing the Range Promotion Board Test in the year 2000. The stand of the respondents are that the Board Test was abolished by the Government in the year 2006. Therefore, they cannot be compelled by the appellants to undergo the Promotion Board Test. Without undergoing test they must be promoted retrospectively from the date on which their batch mates were promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2000. Their claim was not considered by the appellants. Thus, they preferred writ petitions.

5. Yet another ground raised by the respondents is that some of the Motor Transport Wing Head Constables approached the Court and secured orders, which were implemented.

6. With reference to the said ground, we found that the respondents have already retired from service. More so, their batch mates were promoted in the year 2000 to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The respondents were promoted as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2005. The seniority dispute is to be raised by the employees within a period of three years as per the rules in force. The respondents have not raised the seniority dispute within a period of three years. Belated claim to revise the seniority would unsettle the settled seniority and result in an anomalous situation. Therefore, the Courts have consistently