Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 61525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
G.SUNDARAM – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police – Respondent
WP No. 22872 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Bala, Daisy
For the Respondents: A R Balaji
The court directed the administrative authority to consider and pass orders on a representation for seniority refixation when the petitioners' case is squarely covered by prior judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court.
Headnote:The petitioners, appointed as Grade II Police Constables in 1991 and subsequently promoted, sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They requested the respondent to consider their representation dated 18.11.2025 for the refixation of seniority, citing a precedent established in W.P. No.14410 of 2020, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.732/2022 and the Supreme Court in SLP (C). No.339/2024. The primary issue was whether the petitioners, being similarly situated to the parties in the aforementioned judgments, are entitled to have their seniority revised based on marks secured in the Police Training School and placed above candidates from the 1993 recruitment year. The court observed that the petitioners' request was based on established judicial dicta regarding seniority revision for similarly situated personnel. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek seniority refixation based on parity with previously decided judicial precedents for similarly situated employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. the court mandates the respondent to decide on a representation within a specific timeframe when the claim is based on binding judicial dicta. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“Directing the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 18.11.2025 regarding refixation of his seniority in the light of the Judgment in W.P. No.14410 of 2020 dated 24.08.2021 which is confirmed in W.A. No.732/ 2022 dated 08.11.2023 and further confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C). No.339/ 2024 dated 08.01.2024 within a time- frame as deem fit and proper by this Honble court.”
2. The petitioners would submit that they were appointed as Grade II Police Constables on 01.11.1991. Thereafter, they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constable, Head Constable and subsequently as Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioners have rendered nearly 29 years of dedicated and unblemished service in the Police Department and has earned appreciation from their superior officers for the efficient discharge of their duties.
3. The petitioners would submit that certain similarly situated persons, who were provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the same recruitment process but were sent for training at a later point of time, had filed W.P. No.14410 of 2020 before this Court seeking revision of their seniority. By order dated 24.08.2021, this Court had allowed the said writ petition and directed revision of seniority on merits. The said order was subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.732 of 2022 by judgment dated 08.11.2023. The judgment of the Division Bench was thereafter affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.339 of 2024 by order dated 08.01.2024.
4. The petitioners would submit that their case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments, as they are similarly situated to the petitioners therein. Consequently, the petitioners’ seniority is liable to be revised by placing them above the candidates of the subsequent recruitment year, namely 1993, and by assigning them the appropriate place in the seniority list based on the marks secured by them in the Police Training School.
5. In view of the dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 18.11.2025 to the respondents seeking revision and refixation of his seniority. However, to date, the respondents have not passed any orders on the petitioners' representation. Hence, this Writ Petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
7. Considering the relief sought for by the petitioners and in the absence of any serious objection from the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners’ representation dated 18.11.2025, in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.339 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
22-06-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SHR
To
The Director General of Police
Tamilnadu,
Chennai-600 004.
