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.

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. The petitioner seeks that his seniority must the refixed along with those who had been selected and appointed in the process of selection for the year 2012-13 as Grade-II Police Constable on 18.02.2013.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it had been stated that the petitioner had applied for selection as Grade-II Police Constable through the recruitment process for the year 2012-13. However, he was rejected stating that a Criminal Case had been registered against him. With respect to that particular aspect, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.15390/2013. By an order dated 20.05.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside that particular order, which was impugned in the said writ petition. The operative portion of the said order is as follows:

"15. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 05.12.2012 refusing to provide appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner faced criminal case is liable to be quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs."

3. Naturally, in pursuance to the above order, the respondent had appointed the petitioner for the batch 2012-13. It is only imperative that his seniority is refixed along with his batchmates. The petitioner had given a representation in this regard. That representation was rejected by the respondents placing reliance on 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."

The respondents had also placed reliance on 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."

But, however, a learned Single Judge of this Court, In W.P.(MD) No.15958 of 2023 (R. Veerapandian vs. The Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai, and another), had examined a similar issue and had held as follows:

6. This Court has already held in more than couple of cases in favour of the persons, similarly placed like the petitioner. The hesitation of the respondents to revise the petitioner's seniority on par with his batchmates of the year 2012-13 is unwarranted. In few cases wherein the request of revising seniority of a similarly placed person was rejected by the appointing authority, this Court has categorically held that the delay in appointing the petitioner has resulted from the mistake of fact committed by the appointing authority. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for revision of his seniority on par with his batchmates of the year 2012-13.

7. A learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.5356 of 2023 (M.Mohan Vs. The Director Ge