Petitioners appointed under G.O.Ms.No.1339 dated 01.10.1999 cannot claim seniority from earlier recruitment years due to acceptance of conditions tied to their appointments.

ORDER :

These writ petitions has been filed to call for the records of the third respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed on 03.05.2017, 24.07.2017 and 14.05.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioners on par with the candidates recruited in the year 1992-1993 and fix his seniority, w.e.f. 01.11.1995 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits and grant such other further relief.

2. Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.M.Muthappan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Hasan Faizal, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

3. The petitioners claim that they have been appointed during the recruitment year 1992-1993 to the post of Grade II Police Constable, but they got the appointment pursuant to the Government Order dated 10.05.1999. The claim of the petitioners is that they have been selected only in the selection process conducted in the year 1992 and hence, they are entitled to the seniority on par with the candidates, who have been selected and appointed during the recruitment year 1992-1993.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have participated in the selection process only during the recruitment year 1992-1993 and hence, they cannot be placed under the seniority list under some other recruitment. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Raghu Vs. State of A.P. Reported in (2015) 14 SCC 221 , wherein it is held that for candidates who had participated in a common process of selection, irrespective of the dates on which they were deputed for training, their inter se seniority has liable to be determined on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by them, at the final examination at the police training college.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners' claim is not as simple as how they have presented, but they got their appointment only in pursuant to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.1339, Home (Pol-3) Department dated 01.10.1999. In the said Government Order there is a condition that their selection will be done during the recruitment year 1997-1998 and their seniority will also be below the 4000 Grade II Police Constables selected during the said recruitment year 1997-1998.

6. During the year 1992-1993, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board had taken up the selection process for an estimated vacancy of 10,000 posts of Grade II Police Constables. A final list of 10,624 candidates was prepared. While preparing the selection list on communal rotation, 376 vacancies ear-marked for the candidates belonged to SC/ST category could not be filled up due to the non-availability of candidates falling under the said category. So, the candidates belonged to other communities were sent for medical examination and finally 329 candidates were found to be fit for appointment. In the meanwhile, 376 backlog vacancies were ear-marked for the candidates belonging to SC/ST category to be filled up by special recruitment during the selection year 1995-1996 and they have been appointed. So, the Government has dropped 329 candidates, who belonged to other communities and sent them for medical examination. Hence, appointment orders were not issued to him.

7. As the unsuccessful 329 candidates have been making representations to the Government from time to time, on the floor of the Assembly, the Hon'ble Chief Minister had announced t