Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, J
M.Mahendran, (M/35 years), S/o R. Manokaran – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government – 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. 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 t
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.
Seniority for police constables is determined by actual appointment date, not selection date, as upheld by the court.
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.
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....
Denial of promotion as arbitrary when a prior penalty is set aside; principles of natural justice require due consideration of relevant orders.
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.
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
