Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
Prabaharan S. S/o Subramanian - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai - Respondent
W.A. Nos. 2824, 2937, 3094, 3381 of 2023, W.A. No. 2045 of 2024, C.M.P. Nos. 23526, 23527, 23529, 23531, 24418, 24421, 25753, 25756, 25762, 27609, 27610 of 2023, C.M.P. Nos. 14525 of 2024, 25959 of 2024
Decided On : 16-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. retrospective promotion versus seniority disputes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. conclusion on promotions and seniority rights. (Para 12 , 42 , 87 , 119) |
| 4. claims of petitioners regarding government orders. (Para 26 , 27 , 59 , 60 , 67 , 68) |
| 5. final judgment and order of the court. (Para 120 , 123 , 124) |
JUDGMENT :
C. SARAVANAN, J.
1. This Intra Court Appeal is preferred against the Impugned Common Order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Writ Court in a batch of Writ Petitions as detailed below:-
S. No. (1) | Writ Appeal No. (2) | Writ Petition No. (3) |
| 1 | 2824 of 2023 | 2262 of 2023 |
| 2 | 2937 of 2023 | 23294 of 2022 |
| 3 | 3094 of 2023 | 20894 of 2022 |
| 4 | 3381 of 2023 | 23286 of 2022 |
| 5 | 2045 of 2024 | 27030 of 2022 |
2. The Appellants had filed the following Writ Petitions for the following relief. The relief sought for in these Writ Petitions read as under:-
| Prayer in W.P.Nos.23294, 20894, 23286 and 27030 of 2022 | Prayer in W.P.No.2262 of 2023 |
| Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Impugned Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing RC.No.146633/NGB V(1)/2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same. | Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 bearing G.O. Ms. No. 152, Home (Police-III) Department issued by the 1st Respondent and also call for the records in Impugned Order Memorandum dated 18.09.2017 bearing RC.No.146633/NGB IV(1)/2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same. |
3. By the Impugned Common Order dated 14.10.2022, the Writ Court has dismissed the above Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants/Writ Petitioners with the following observations:-
“14. No doubt, in the qualification aspect the Full Court has held that when the benefit is conferred, the requirements to get such a benefit must be satisfied. There is no scope for a deemed satisfaction and what is expected is that the actual satisfaction of the requirements and completed the fixed period of overall service is required to make the benefit. This judgment has been delivered on 04.02.2022. However, the seniority orders have been in the year 2016. Based on that, seniority many of them have benefitted based on the Government Orders referred above. In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that settled things cannot be unsettled after lapse of many years. Therefore, this court is of the view that these Writ Petitions are certainly not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches.
15. The many Government Orders referred in the Impugned Orders have not been challenged. These writ petitions came to be filed only after the Full Bench have authoritatively declared the relevant qualification. Therefore,without challenging all the relevant Government Orders by impleading all other beneficiaries under the above order this Court is of the view that at this stage, the seniority issue cannot be reopened.
16. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
4. While dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants/Writ Petitioners vide Impugned Common Order dated 20.09.2023, the Writ Court upheld that contentions of the Official Respondents and the Private Respondents who were recruited/appointed as ‘Women Police Constables (WPC)’ in the year 1990-1991 under the Ad hoc Rules.
5. Their names were earlier included for promotion in ‘C’ List of ‘Head Constables’ with retrospective effect from the year 1999 who were fit for promotion to the post of ‘Inspector of Police’ for the panel year 2010 in terms of the Impugned Memorandum after they were designated as ‘Special Sub Inspector of Police(SSI)’ in terms of Impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 152, Home (Police-III) Department dated 25.02.2011
6. The Writ Court ultima
The court held that seniority must be established based on actual service dates, not retrospective adjustments, reinforcing the principles established in prior rulings regarding promotions and upgrad....
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
The court held that Government Orders related to upgradation and promotion of police personnel operated prospectively and did not allow for deemed upgradation or promotion.
Service during ad-hoc promotions counts for seniority; initial appointment must fulfill recruitment criteria to be recognized, irrespective of ad-hoc nature.
The court ruled that individual acts of bravery warrant recognition and promotion, overriding blanket policies that deny seniority based on group promotions.
The period of continuous officiation after appointment has to be taken into account for determining seniority, and where an appointment was made by way of a stopgap arrangement, the experience on suc....
Seniority for promotions must be determined by the date of first appointment in the relevant category, not by enlistment in a lower rank.
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
