IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. OF 2024

D. Baskaran
No. 7/271 D, Cylon colony,
Alasapatti road, Musiri, Trichy – 621 211. ….Petitioner
VS

1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by

Secretary (Home – Police) Department,
The Secretariat, Chennai – 5.
2. The Director General of Police
Dr. Radhakrishnan Road,
Chennai-600 004. ….Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER

I, D. Baskaran, S/o. V. Dhanakodi, aged about 60 years, residing

at 7/271, D, Cylon colony, Alasapatti road, Musiri, Trichy – 621 211,

now temporarily having come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly

affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

1. I am the petitioner herein and well acquainted with facts of this

case.

2. GIST OF THE CASE:

This Writ Petition is filed based on the order dated 5.8.2024

passed
by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 6956 of 2022 granting liberty to

the petitioner to challenge the rejection order dated 19/10/2020. The

respondent gave an undertaking before the Apex Court not to raise the

aspect of delay when the said order is challenged in this writ petition.

The Apex Court order dated 5/8/2024 is enclosed. The crux of the issue

is that he was selected as Sub-Inspector of Police for the recruitment

year 1997-1998. Due to wrong diagnosis, he was not appointed

alleging that his eye vision had a defect. The Medical Board

certificate was not furnished to the petitioner, which stated two

things:

a) that he was fit to work with glasses (as he had been

wearing it for 6 years as an in-service candidate); and

b) he could reappear for medical checkup again after

undergoing correctional surgery, if any.

This information was completely blocked out from his knowledge and it

was not supplied to him. Besides, even the reason for rejection

was not communicated to him. It is to be seen that since 1988, he

had been working as a Constable and for over 6 years before applying

for Sub- Inspector selection, he was wearing spectacles. He appeared

in the selection process with spectacles only. There was a board

circular / G.O. stating that for an in-service candidate, such medical

test was not mandatory as he or she is fit to work. The copy of it is not

available with the petitioner as of now.

3. Aggrieved over the rejection, the petitioner moved the then TAT

in

O.A.No. 1963 of 1999 seeking to appoint him as S.I. of Police for the

year 1997 – 1998. Along with other medically unfit cases concerning

“flat-foot” / “bow-leg”, the petitioner’s case was unfortunately tagged

and it was dismissed by TAT. Aggrieved further, the petitioner filed

W.P. No. 19714 of 2004 seeking to quash the order dated

16.10.2003 passed in O.A.No. 1963 of 1999. While the writ petition was

pending before the Division Bench, the petitioner also underwent the

correctional eye surgery and produced the certificate that visual

standard of his left eye was also 6/6 without glasses. By an

order dated 4.11.2006, after observing the above eye surgery

underwent by him, the Division Bench directed the respondents to

conduct a fresh medical test on the petitioner and appoint him if found

fit.
 4. Not accepting the order of the Division Bench, they

preferred SLP

(Civil) No. 21220 of 2007. By an order dated 8.3.2010, the SLP filed by

the State was dismissed on merits after issuing notice to the petitioner.

Thereupon, the petitioner was sent for training on 7.6.2011 and got

appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in L&O Category. He completed

his probation on 22.12.2013 and then he filed W.P. 11798 OF 2014

seeking a Mandamus for the grant of retrospective promotion on a par

with his batchmates recruited for the year 1997 – 1998. In the past and

until recently, such a seniority has been granted to various

candidates by the department. By an order dated 3.6.2020, the

learned single Judge directed them to consider his representation in

the light of the Memorandum in R.C.No. 257256/rect 1(2)/2019 dated

5.1.2020 issued by DGP in which the case of similarly situated

candidate was positively considered. As the writ order to consider his

representation was given nearly 6 years after filing the writ petition,

without disposing it on merits, the petitioner filed W.A.No. 617 of 2021.

By an order dated 27.7.2021 the Division Bench directed the

respondents to consider his case based on directions already given in

the above W.P.No. 11798 of 2014, within 4 weeks thereof. In the

following hearing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench that

continued to hear the above writ appeal, by its order dated

11.4.2022, directed the respondents to report compliance on

15.6.2022 forthwith. Aggrieved over the Division Bench judgment,

the respondents again filed SLP (Civil) No. 6956 of 2022

without disclosing the order to report compliance on 15/6/2022

forthwith. By an order dated 5.8.2024, the Apex Court directed the

petitioner to challenge the order dated 19.10.2020 without the

respondents raising an issue of delay in challenging the order dated

19/10/2020. The writ petition is filed accordingly based on the orders of

Supreme Court. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that the

entire delay is only due to the department’s attitude and in such

circumstances, they have granted retrospective seniority to other

persons, though the department sent the candidates for training

several years later. The petitioner retired as the Sub-Inspector of

Police a few months ago. While he ought to have retired as DSP, he

had retired only as S.I. of Police, under these circumstances, the

present writ petition is filed seeking paper promotion together with all

consequential benefits. The table appended in Para 9 hereunder

will prove how such retrospective seniority has been given in

the past for so many years. Hence this writ petition.

 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

I submit that I joined the police department as a constable in the

year

1988. Later, due to refraction that took place in my eye sight owing to

the nature of work, I was constrained to wear spectacles in the year

1990 or so. For the recruitment year 1997-1998, G.O. No. 1317 dated

8.9.1997 was issued calling for applications to fill up 1000 vacancies

for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. I applied for the same as an in-

service candidate for the direct recruitment S.I. under 20% quota. I

became successful in written test, physical measurement test, physical

efficiency test, and viva voice. It is necessary to state that

a) I was wearing spectacles for over 6 years before

applying for the post of Sub-Inspector and the
department is well aware of it;
b) for in-service candidates, eye test was not
mandatory
during the relevant time.
I am not in possession of the G.O. / Board circular exempting eye test

for in-service candidates. But I am confident that there was in vogue

such a position. The respondents be directed to produce the same. I

came to know about such G.O./Board Letter only recently.

 6. The following table will highlight the troubles faced by the

petitioner at the hands of the State:

25/5/1988 Joined as Grade II P.C. and he started

wearing
spectacles since 1991.

1997 – 1998 Applied for S.I. selection

A) Not selected due to eye defect.
B) But medical board opined he was fit to
work with glasses and he could re-appear
before the medical board after surgery.
Fully suppressed.
C) Reasons for rejections also not
communicated.

O.A. No. 1963 of 1999 TAT dismissed petitioner’s O.A. by

wrongly
tagging it other medically unfit cases of
“bow-leg”.

W.P.No.19714 of 2004 Petitioner filed it against the said TAT

order. In
the meantime visual standard 6/6 was
attained by petitioner after a surgery.
4/11/2006 Division Bench passed an order in
W.P. No.
19714 of 2004 to conduct 2 nd
medical test and
appoint him, if found fit. Not
implemented. State
did not agree with reasoned order
by DB.

SLP.No.21220 of 2007 State filed SLP and it was dismissed on

8/3/2010

7/6/2011 Petitioner sent for one-year training plus 6

months practical training.

22/12/2013 Petitioner completed probation in the

post of S.I.

April 2014 W.P.No. 11798 of 2014 filed by

petitioner seeking batch seniority of 1997 –
1998.

3/6/2020 W.P.No. 11798 of 2014 disposed of

directing them to consider in the light of
the Memorandum dated 5/1/2020 issued by
DGP, wherein similar cases were positively
considered.

2021 W.A.No.617 of 2021 was filed by Petitioner

as the above writ order was passed
 directing respondents only to consider his
appointment in the light of 5/1/2020
Memorandum. In other words, since no
order was passed on merit, Writ appeal was
preferred.

27/7/2021 W.A.No. 617 of 2021 disposed by directing

them to consider directions given in
W.P.No. 11798 of 2014.

11/4/2024 Subsequent DB heard W.A.No. 617 of 2021

and directed them to report compliance on
15/6/2022.

SLP No. 6956 of 2022 Filed by the State. But in SLP, the last order
dated 11/4/2024 was not brought to the
knowledge of Apex Court.

5/8/2024 SLP disposed observing that the State

canvassed that 19/10/2020 rejection order
was not challenged by writ petitioner.

5/8/2024 SLP No. 6956 of 2022 disposed by directing

the writ petitioner to challenge the
rejection order dated 19/10/2020 by way of
a fresh writ petition. If done, the State had
given an undertaking not to object for the
delay in challenging the order dated
19/10/2020.

24/9/2024 Present Writ Petition filed.

 7. I submit that the first batch of trainees was sent on 16.4.1999

and the

second batch was sent for training on 22.5.2000 in my recruitment

year 1997-1998. The medical test was conducted for me on 22.2.1999.

Had the respondents furnished to me the copy of the medical board

which stated that I was fit to work with glasses and that I could do any

laser surgery and go back for second medical test, I must have availed

of the surgery and become eligible to be sent for training in the first

batch itself. Since I was not informed of the reason for rejection,

I was constrained to file O.A. No. 1963 of 1999 before the then Tamil

Nadu Administrative Tribunal (for short TAT). At that point of time,

several other candidates who were rejected in the medical test due to

having ‘flat leg’ and ‘bow leg’ also filed applications before the TAT.

Unfortunately, to my ill-luck, my O.A. No. 1963 was clubbed along with

the said ‘flat-leg” batch. By a common order dated 16.10.2003, TAT

passed an order vide O.A. Nos. 7047 of 1998 etc. batch (A. Sagayaraj

and ors. Vs The State of Tamilnadu and 5 ors.) dismissing all the

applications, including my O.A. 1963/1999.

 8. Finding no alternative, I had to file W.P. No. 19714 of 2004 before

the

Division Bench of our High Court. During its pendency, as advised by

senior colleagues of my department, I also underwent the Lasik

surgery, thus aligning my eye standard as 6/6. Upon production of the

eye surgery certificate, the Division Bench ultimately passed the final

order on 4.11.2006 accepting the certificate besides directing the

respondents to perform a fresh medical test for me and to absorb me

in service, if found fit. To my shock, the respondents preferred

SLP No. 21220 of 2007, disregarding the dictum of DB. After

notice to me, the SLP was dismissed on 8.3.2010. Thus, it can be

seen that right from the initial medical test conducted on

22.2.1999, it is the respondents who have been delaying my

seniority and spoiling my career opportunity at every stage by

preferring appeals after appeals. On 18.1.2011, the second

medical test was conducted after dismissal of the SLP. I became

successful in it as well. Finding me fit and with valour, the office of DGP

issued Memorandum 6.6.2011 for appointing me as the S.I. of Police.

On 18.6.2011, I was sent for practical training and

subsequently posted as S.I. on 17.12.2012. After completion of

my probation, I made a representation on 19/8/2013 seeking

retrospective seniority of the year 1997 – 1998.

9. At this juncture, I respectfully submit that in similar

circumstances

where the candidates were rejected due to medical unfitness and

pendency of criminal prosecution, they were initially denied the

appointment, like what was done to me. Subsequently, when they

were found fit in the second medical test and after obtaining acquittal

in criminal cases, such candidates were sent for training

belatedly but granted retrospective seniority with their

batchmates. The following are some of the instances where

such retrospective seniority was given to candidates of the

same batch of the year 1997-1998, in the previous batch of

1994-1995, and during the subsequent years also.

Sl. YEAR OF DATE OF FINAL

No. SELECTION/ W.P.No./ TRAINING SENIORITY
G.O. No. (SENT GRANTED
BELATEDLY
AFTER FOUND
FIT IN THE
SECOND
MEDICAL TEST/
 AFTER
ACQUITTAL IN
CRIMINAL CASE)

1. 1994-1995/ 2003 Original batch

W.P.No. 19914 and year of 1994 –
19915 of 2000 dt 1995
4/7/2014

2. W.P.No. 7242 & 7243 After acquittal in Original batch

of 2009 dated criminal case sent year of 1994 –
12/2/2014 for training on 1995
16/4/1999

3. W.P.No. 5041 of 2008 Sent for training in Original batch

& 11057 of 2009 dated 2008 & 2009 year of 1994 –
19/2/2010 1995

4. G.O.No. 665 dated 15/12/2003 Original batch

28/7/2009 year of 1994 –
1995

5. 1997-1998 Sent for training Original batch

G.O. No. 534 dated on 2006 year of 1997-
6/7/2009 1998

4. 1997 -1998 Sent for training Original batch

on 2007 year of 1997 -
 G.O.No. 439 dated 1998
8/8/2011

5. 1997-1998/ Note: those who Original batch

G.O. 556 dated were sent for year of 1997-
30.12.2020 training belatedly 1998. G.O.No.
upto the year 556 was
2007 were given implemented
inter-se seniority through the
based on marks implementatio
secured at police n order dated
training college 30/1/2021
(PTC) after a gap
of 20 years

6. 2008 2012 on account Original batch

of pregnancy etc. year of 2008

7. Memorandum of DGP in Rejected due to Original batch

RC No. 257256/rect medical unfitness; seniority given
1(2)/2019 dt. 5/1/2020 subsequently sent
for training after
satisfying medical
fitness
 From the above table, it becomes crystal clear that even after

several

years when candidates were sent for training belatedly, their original

batch seniority was restored. Therefore, a different treatment meted

out to me has resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution

of India.

10. At the boredom of repetition, I submit that at the first

instance,

the respondents screened and suppressed the enabling medical board

report stating that if the Board wanted, I could be allowed to work with

glasses, since I had been an in-service candidate. This apart, I was

enabled to re-appear after the surgery. The entire medical report was

not given to me. In the second instance, they should have accepted

at least the verdict of the Division Bench and sent me for training. But

they did not do so. In the third instance, they wilfully filed the SLP

and obtained the dismissal order 3 years after filing it, in the year

2010. Its only thereafter they sent me for training in the year 2011, by

which I could complete the one-year statutory training meant for the

post of S.I. As it is known, any candidate will gain strength to seek any

relief only after completion of the probation period. In the fourth

instance, even though all records were available, the respondents

filed the counter affidavit nearly 4 years after filing the writ petition,

thus disabling me not to list the W.P. for final hearing before

completion of pleadings. In the fifth instance, though the Division

Bench of our High Court directed the respondents to consider my

seniority based on guidelines given in W.P., they not only failed to do

so but wilfully preferred an SLP. In the sixth instance, in C.M.P. No.

14698 of 2021 in the above W.A. No. 617 of 2021 dated 11/4/2022, the

Division Bench further observed we are of the view that the order of

this court dated 22/7/2021 has got to be complied with, without

prejudice to the rights of both parties. It is highly puerile to fight the

matter in the Supreme Court or reject my representation in the year

2010 especially after granting similar retrospective seniority in the

past for several other persons, in similar circumstances. The seniority

also be fixed without prejudice to the rights of the parties to the SLP

and depending upon the outcome in SLP, the monitory benefits be

extended to the writ petitioner / respondents can be recovered. “The

order of this court dated 27/7/2021 to be complied with by 15/6/2022”.

Even this direction has not been complied by them. In the seventh

instance, the respondents have played a childish game that I should

challenge the order dated 19/10/2020, after a gap of several years

after completing two rounds of litigation upto the Supreme Court. It

only shows that in spite of granting relief in similar cases, the

respondents have viewed my case as a prestige issue for them and

that is why they are initiated litigation successfully without bringing it

to the logical end. Perhaps, if the mistake is accepted, some officers

will be exposed to disciplinary proceedings for not having given me

proper seniority. To eclipse such happening, they have successfully

prolonged the litigation upto the stage of my retirement. Atleast now

they can entertain fairness in their mind and concede to grant me the

relief. Unless, this Hon’ble Court comes to my rescue at this crucial

hour, I will not see the light of the day.

11. Since I have retired from police service, even if the

respondents

concede, I can be given proper promotion only and it will result in

better pensionary benefits to me. I am the only earning member as of

now in my family. It is unfortunate that even the legitimate rights of

seniority due to me have been wilfully postponed by the respondents.

12. I further submit that at this length of time, I do not have the
original copy of the impugned order dated 19/10/2020 of the 2 nd

respondent. However, I have enclosed a true copy of the order. Hence,

I may be permitted to file the true copy of it by way of dispensing with

the production of its original copy.

13. At this juncture, there is no other efficacious alternative

remedy

available to me except to approach this Hon’ble Court U/A 226 of the

Constitution of India on the following among other.

GROUNDS

A) The impugned order of rejection dated 19/10/2020 is against

the

case laid down by the Apex Court and this High Court.

B) When the respondents have granted the similar relief in similar

circumstances to similarly placed persons, it is neither legal nor

justified in refusing such relief to the petitioner.

C) There is absolutely no delay on the part of the petitioner. On

the
other hand, the entire dilatory tactics have been adopted only by the

respondents. At any stage, they disobeyed or rejected the reasoned

order passed by the Hon’ble Division Benches of this Court and

proceeded to file successive SLPs. Hence the impugned order is liable

to be quashed.

D)The Jorgen “settled seniority cannot be unsettled” mentioned

in

the impugned order does not apply to the facts of this case. As such,

the impugned order cannot stand to legal scrutiny.

E) Section 24(d) of Special Rules of TNPSS and Rule 25 (a) of it

are

Pari Materia to each other. In the proceedings dated 5/1/2020, the

department granted retrospective seniority with original batch for

Grade – II PC who were initially rejected due to medical fitness but

subsequently found fit. It is exactly the similar situation that the

petitioner faced. Hence a different plea cannot be taken by the

respondents as regards the petitioner’s case.

 F) Had not the respondents suppressed the medical Board

opinion,

the petitioner could have taken efforts to bring his eyesight as 6/6 and

become eligible to be sent for training in the very 1 st batch on

16/4/1999 itself. In several cases, the candidates who underwent 2 nd

medical test were found fit and they were given their original batch

seniority, even though they were belatedly sent for training after a few

years. Since the petitioner has retired, the question of affecting

somebody else’s seniority does not arise at all. Consequently, the

impugned order of rejection that “seniority once settled cannot be

unsettled after a lapse of long time” does not arise in this case.

G) The delay or long lapse is solely attributable only to the

respondents who had carried the matter to the Apex Court or suffered

the dismissal after 4 years of filing the SLP. Again, in writ proceedings

also, they filed their counter affidavit after a long lapse of time and if

these 2 litigations are taken together, they have consumed easily 10

years of crucial carrier opportunity of the petitioner. Therefore, there is

absolutely no ground available to the respondents to defend the

present writ petition. In all fairness, they should come forward to grant

at least paper promotion to the petitioner in that behalf.

 H)The petitioner seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to file any

additional affidavit and/or grounds at a later point of time, if any

exigency so arises.

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to pass a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS or any

other order or direction in the nature of writ by calling for records of

the 2nd respondent, namely DGP vide RC No. 151266/rect II(1)/2017

dated 19/10/2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to fix his

seniority on par with 1997 – 1998 batchmates and quashing the same

and consequently direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the

petitioner on par with 1997 – 1998 batch Sub-Inspectors of police

besides fixing his Inter-se Seniority based on marks secured by the

petitioner at the Police Training College with all consequential and

attendant benefits within time frame, pass such other orders as may

be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render

justice.

It is, further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased

to dispense with the production of the original copy of the impugned

order passed by the 2nd respondent vide RC No. 151266/rect II (1)/2017

dated 19/10/2020 and render justice.

Solemnly affirmed and signed BEFORE ME

in my presence in Chennai this

the day of September, 2024 ADVOCATE: CHENNAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original
Jurisdiction)
W.P. No.
OF 2024

D. Baskaran
….Petitioner
vs.
State of Tamilnadu rep. by
Secretary (Home – Police)
Department,
The Secretariat, Chennai – 5.

….Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER

C. KEERTHANA
R.
SATHISH
MONISH. J
ADHAVASNEH
AK

COUNSEL FOR PETITONER

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION

( UNDER ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA )
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. OF 2024

D. Baskaran
No. 7/271 D, Cylon colony,
Alasapatti road, Musiri,
Trichy – 621 211.
….Petitioner
Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by

Secretary (Home – Police) Department,
The Secretariat, Chennai – 5.
2. The Director General of Police
Dr. Radhakrishnan Road,
Chennai-600 004. ….Respondents

WRIT PETITION

The address for service of all processes and notices on the petitioner

is that of his counsel MISS C. KEERTHANA, MR.R. SATHISH, MONISH.J,

MISS.ADHAVASNEHA. K at No. 57, Law chamber, High Court, chennai-

104.

The address for service of all processes and notices on the respondents

is as stated above.
 For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

be pleased to pass a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS or any

other order or direction in the nature of writ by calling for records of

the 2nd respondent, namely DGP vide RC No. 151266/rect II(1)/2017

dated 19/10/2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to fix his

seniority on par with 1997 – 1998 batchmates and quashing the same

and consequently direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the

petitioner on par with 1997 – 1998 batch Sub-Inspectors of police

besides fixing his Inter-se Seniority based on marks secured by the

petitioner at the Police Training College with all consequential and

attendant benefits within time frame, pass such other orders as may

be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render

justice.

Dated in Chennai this the day of September, 2024.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

 MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLAEOUS PETITION
(UNDER ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.M.P No. OF 2024
IN
W.P. NO. OF 2024

D. Baskaran
No. 7/271 D, Cylon colony,
Alasapatti road, Musiri,
Trichy – 621 211. ….
Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by

Secretary (Home – Police) Department,
The Secretariat, Chennai – 5.
2. The Director General of Police
Dr. Radhakrishnan Road,
Chennai-600 004. ….Respondents /
Respondents

DISPENSE WITH PETITION

For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to dispense with the production of the original copy of

the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent vide RC No.

151266/rect II (1)/2017 dated 19/10/2020 and render justice.

Dated in Chennai this the day of September, 2024.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. OF 2024

D. Baskaran
….Petitioner
Vs.

State of Tamilnadu rep. by

Secretary (Home – Police) Department,
AND ANOTHER
….Respondents

SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE

This Writ Petition is filed based on the order dated 5.8.2024

passed

by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 6956 of 2022 granting liberty to

the petitioner to challenge the rejection order dated 19/10/2020. The

respondent gave an undertaking before the Apex Court not to raise the

aspect of delay when the said order is challenged in this writ petition.

The Apex Court order dated 5/8/2024 is enclosed. The crux of the issue
is that he was selected as Sub-Inspector of Police for the recruitment

year 1997-1998. Due to wrong diagnosis, he was not appointed

alleging that his eye vision had a defect. The Medical Board

certificate was not furnished to the petitioner, which stated two

things:

a) that he was fit to work with glasses (as he had been wearing
it for 6 years as an in-service candidate); and

b) he could reappear for medical checkup again after

undergoing correctional surgery, if any.

This information was completely blocked out from his knowledge and it

was not supplied to him. Besides, even the reason for rejection

was not communicated to him. It is to be seen that since 1988, he

had been working as a Constable and for over 6 years before applying

for Sub- Inspector selection, he was wearing spectacles. He appeared

in the selection process with spectacles only. There was a board

circular / G.O. stating that for an in-service candidate, such medical

test was not mandatory as he or she is fit to work. The copy of it is not

available with the petitioner as of now.

Aggrieved over the rejection, the petitioner moved the then TAT

in
O.A.No. 1963 of 1999 seeking to appoint him as S.I. of Police for the

year 1997 – 1998. Along with other medically unfit cases concerning

“flat-foot” / “bow-leg”, the petitioner’s case was unfortunately tagged

and it was dismissed by TAT. Aggrieved further, the petitioner filed

W.P. No. 19714 of 2004 seeking to quash the order dated

16.10.2003 passed in O.A.No. 1963 of 1999. While the writ petition was

pending before the Division Bench, the petitioner also underwent the

correctional eye surgery and produced the certificate that visual

standard of his left eye was also 6/6 without glasses. By an

order dated 4.11.2006, after observing the above eye surgery

underwent by him, the Division Bench directed the respondents to

conduct a fresh medical test on the petitioner and appoint him if found

fit.

Not accepting the order of the Division Bench, they

preferred SLP

(Civil) No. 21220 of 2007. By an order dated 8.3.2010, the SLP filed by

the State was dismissed on merits after issuing notice to the petitioner.

Thereupon, the petitioner was sent for training on 7.6.2011 and got

appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in L&O Category. He completed

his probation on 22.12.2013 and then he filed W.P. 11798 OF 2014

seeking a Mandamus for the grant of retrospective promotion on a par

with his batchmates recruited for the year 1997 – 1998. In the past and

until recently, such a seniority has been granted to various

candidates by the department. By an order dated 3.6.2020, the

learned single Judge directed them to consider his representation in

the light of the Memorandum in R.C.No. 257256/rect 1(2)/2019 dated

5.1.2020 issued by DGP in which the case of similarly situated

candidate was positively considered. As the writ order to consider his

representation was given nearly 6 years after filing the writ petition,

without disposing it on merits, the petitioner filed W.A.No. 617 of 2021.

By an order dated 27.7.2021 the Division Bench directed the

respondents to consider his case based on directions already given in

the above W.P.No. 11798 of 2014, within 4 weeks thereof. In the

following hearing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench that

continued to hear the above writ appeal, by its order dated

11.4.2022, directed the respondents to report compliance on

15.6.2022 forthwith. Aggrieved over the Division Bench judgment,

the respondents again filed SLP (Civil) No. 6956 of 2022

without disclosing the order to report compliance on 15/6/2022

forthwith. By an order dated 5.8.2024, the Apex Court directed the

petitioner to challenge the order dated 19.10.2020 without the

respondents raising an issue of delay in challenging the order dated

19/10/2020. The writ petition is filed accordingly based on the orders of

Supreme Court. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that the

entire delay is only due to the department’s attitude and in such

circumstances, they have granted retrospective seniority to other

persons, though the department sent the candidates for training

several years later. The petitioner retired as the Sub-Inspector of

Police a few months ago. While he ought to have retired as DSP, he

had retired only as S.I. of Police, under these circumstances, the

present writ petition is filed seeking paper promotion together with all

consequential benefits. The table appended in Para 9 hereunder

will prove how such retrospective seniority has been given in

the past for so many years. Hence this writ petition.

DATED IN CHENNAI THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.

COUNSEL FOR PETITONER