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.

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 communication on 19.09.2015 stating that he had been selected in the selection process of 2012-13 and would be sent for training. He reported for training and his services were then regularised and he is still functioning under the respondent.

3. The petitioner then gave a representation on 17.05.2022 seeking restoration of seniority on par with his batchmates. This was rejected by the impugned order holding that the representation was given after a period of three years and therefore, the representation could not be considered.

4. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the third respondent again contending that the representation had been given by the petitioner after a period of three years. In this connection, a reference was made to Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Services) Act 2016, which reads as follows:

"Application for the revision of seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service class category or grade or within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority as the case may be. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not, however, be applicable to cases of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts."

Reference had also been made to Rule 35(f) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, which reads as follows:

"Application for the revision of seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service class category or grade or within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority as the case may be. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not, however, be applicable to cases of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts."

It is thus contended that since petitioner had given representation belatedly, the request of the petitioner could not be considered. It was in those circumstances, the respondents sought that the present Writ Petition should be dismissed.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out the facts that the petitioner had been initially disqualified from selection owing to his alleged deficiency in the eye sight. Thereafter, the petitioner had been referred to the Medical Board, who found the petitioner fit and certified that the petitioner could discharge his duties as Grade-II Police Constable. The petitioner, however, could not join on the same day as his other batchmates since the training had started. The petitioner, thereafter, re