IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL W.A.No.556 of 2023

1. The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 004.

2. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul. .. Appellants Vs.

B.Raja .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 07.12.2021 made in W.P.No.7546 of 2015.

For the Appellants : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader For the Respondent : Mr.K.Raja JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 07.12.2021 made in W.P.No.7546 of

2015.

2. The respondent was the writ petitioner, who was working as Inspector of Police in the appellant Department. The next promotional avenue is Deputy Superintendent of Police and he became eligible to be included in the panel for promotion for the year 2011-12, consisting of persons in the feeder category to be promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with the crucial date as on 01.06.2011.

3. Accordingly, the respondent writ petitioner's name got included in the panel for the year 2011-12 and after the panel having been prepared, including the name of the respondent writ petitioner, was sent by the Department to the Government for necessary approval and orders.

4. The State Government also, after having perused the panel, gave approval and issued orders on 19.06.2012, permitting the Department to give promotional appointment orders to the persons whose names have been approved in the panel, including the name of the respondent writ petitioner. Though such an order has been passed on 19.06.2012, the Department took some time to pass orders and they ultimately passed orders only on 06.07.2012.

5. In the meanwhile, the respondent writ petitioner has superannuated on 30.06.2012, that is six days prior to the orders of appointment and promotion given to others on 06.07.2012. Therefore, the appellant Department has denied such promotional appointment to the respondent writ petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police by considering the reason that before they have passed orders on 06.07.2012, of course belatedly, the respondent writ petitioner has already superannuated on

30.06.2012.

6. Therefore, to that extent, he already approached the Department, which has been negated by the order dated 20.12.2014 passed by the Director General of Police. That was questioned before this Court in the said writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus. The said writ petition was heard and allowed by the learned Judge through the impugned order dated

07.12.2021.

7. We have heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant Department and also Mr.K.Raja, learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner.

8. The learned Judge has traced the facts where, crucially, the facts have been recorded as has been projected on behalf of the Department by the learned Additional Government Pleader before the Writ Court, which has been extracted in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, which reads thus:

“3. The learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the crucial date for the Panel Year of 2011-2012 was fixed as 01.06.2011 and the petitioner's name along with others was included and the proposal was sent to the Government for temporary appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category 1). The Government issued orders on 19.06.2012 and the consequential appointment orders were issued on 06.07.2012, by which time, the petitioner had already retired from service on 30.06.2012, owing to which, he could not be given the promotion.”

From which, it can be easily