IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

and M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 and WMP.No. 11848 of 2018

S. Senthil Kumar ..Petitioner

Vs

1.The Director General of Police,

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai

Mylapore, Chennai -600004

2.The Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3.R.Mahendran 4.S.Devanathan

5.Selvam ..Respondents

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying

for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in D.O. No. 637/2015 in C.No.A1/22897/2015 dated 27.07.2015 and quash the same insofar as the respondents 3 to 5 are concerned and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police (AR) based on the feeder category seniority and grant him all consequential service and monetary

benefits and grant such other relief.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel

For Respondents : Dr.S.Suriya, AGP – R1 & R2 Mr.G.Sugadev Rajaguru – R4 & R5 R5 – Dismissed as abated(vide order of this Court dated 17.12.2025)

R3 – Dismissed (vide order of this Court dated 20.11.2024)

O R D E R

The challenge in this writ petition is to the drawal of the C-List (HC/AR)

dated 27.07.2015 issued by the 1st respondent, whereby names of the private respondents were included for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (AR), and the Petitioner was excluded from the said list.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Grade II Police Constable on

24.05.1999. While in service as a Grade II Police Constable, he was awarded a black mark on 23.06.2005. Consequently, the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable (AR), and he was promoted to the said post only on 27.04.2007 against an available vacancy. Respondents 2 to 5, who were admittedly juniors to the petitioner, were granted accelerated promotion as Grade I Police Constables with effect from 30.10.2004 in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1252, Home (Police 8) Department, dated 29.10.2004, for their service in the Special Task Force constituted to apprehend the forest brigand Veerappan.

3. As a result of such accelerated promotion, respondents 3 to 5 were promoted to the post of Grade I Police Constable earlier than the petitioner and were treated as seniors in that cadre. Their names were therefore included in the panel drawn in the year 2015, whereas the petitioner’s name was excluded on the ground that no vacancy was available. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on G.O.Ms. No.

1396, Home (Pol.1A) Department, dated 03.10.2007, submitted that although respondents 3 to 5 were granted accelerated promotion prior to the petitioner, for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post, seniority has to be reckoned based on the original seniority in the feeder category, namely Grade II Police Constable. It was contended that, contrary to the said Government Order, the petitioner’s name was excluded from the promotion panel, which action is arbitrary and discriminatory.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 1396 dated 03.10.2007 was subjected to challenge before this Court and that the learned Single Judge had upheld the validity of the said Government Order, however, was set aside and the said G.O. was restored. 6. In response, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 3 to 5 submitted that, since the petitioner was awarded a black mark, his promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable was deferred until the year 2007. On the other hand, respondents 3 to 5 were granted accelerated promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable as early as in the year 2004. Therefore, they were seniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Grade I Police Constable. In the absence of any vacancy in the promotion panel fo