Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. S. SUNDAR
Prabaharan S. S/o Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai – Respondent
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)/201 |
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.
Amendments favoring in-service candidates in seniority over direct recruits violated constitutional equality, necessitating merit-based revisions.
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
