Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms Justice R.N.MANJULA
V. Thangaprakasam – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government Home (Police III) Department, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of petitioners' appointments. (Para 1 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. court's observations on petitions. (Para 2 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments related to seniority claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 14) |
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 Const
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.
Seniority for police constables is determined by actual appointment date, not selection date, as upheld by the court.
Limitation for revising seniority does not apply in cases of rectifying orders resulting from mistakes of fact, allowing the petitioner to be considered for seniority with batchmates.
Limitation does not apply to rectifying orders resulting from mistakes of fact, allowing restoration of seniority for a police constable initially disqualified due to medical reasons.
Point of Law : In direct recruitment whose appointments have delayed without any fault on part of candidates, but due to latches on the part of the department, candidate is entitled to be ranking giv....
A candidate cannot be deprived of his entitlement due to an action taken by the authorities which was wrong and held to be wrong by a Court of law.
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.
Seniority of Sub Inspectors (Technical) must be determined by examination marks post-training, not by appointment dates, and delays not caused by candidates should not affect their seniority.
Merit-based seniority must prevail in public service appointments despite procedural delays, ensuring fair treatment and equal opportunities as mandated by service regulations.
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
