Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, J
M.Saravanan, S/o R. Murugan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary To Government, Home (Police Ii) Department – Respondent
ORDER :
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 26.10.2022 and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to direct the respondents to re-fix and restore the seniority of the petitioner along with those who were selected and appointed in the process of selection for the year 2012-13 as Grade-II Police Constable on 18.02.2013 and grant consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner had applied for the selection for Grade-II Police constable in notification issued by the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board in 2012-13. The petitioner appeared for medical examination. He was disqualified on the ground of deficiency in the eye sight and was not selected. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board constituted by the Government Institute of Opthalmology. The petitioner was found fully qualified and fit and an order was issued on 30.09.2013. In the meanwhile, those who had been initially selected had been sent for training and the petitioner could not join duty and thereafter, after a lapse of two years, he received a com
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.
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.
Seniority for police constables is determined by actual appointment date, not selection date, as upheld by the court.
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....
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.
Promotion seniority should not be altered based on delays in qualification if it complies with probation rules, affirming the importance of adhering to original seniority assignments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the second respondent to pass necessary orders for the fixation of correct seniority on par with S. Shanmugam in th....
Prompt action is required in matters relating to seniority, and belated interference with settled matters can have adverse effects and serious administrative implications.
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
