Allowed

P.Senthil Kumar v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC2 Sept 2021WP/33749/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to refix the seniority of a Grade-II Police Constable to match his batchmates. The petitioner was appointed in 2008 after a significant delay caused by disqualification due to defective eyesight, which was later removed via surgery. The court held the delay was not the petitioner's fault and granted notional seniority.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to refix the seniority of the petitioner along with his batchmates from the 2001-2002 recruitment within six weeks.

P.Senthil Kumar Vs The Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

 W.P.No.33749 of 2016

¶6

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶7

P.Senthil Kumar ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs

¶9

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 4. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
refix the seniority of the petitioner by include his name at the
appropriate place in the selection list of 2001-2003 for the
post of Police Constable or at least refix the seniority from
the date of training i.e., 15.09.2005 as Police Constable.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner had filed several writ petitions for being
appointed as a Grade II Police Constable as his selection was
rejected originally on the ground of defective eye sight.
Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.35585 of 2004 which
came to be disposed by an order dated 03.12.2004. By the

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

aforesaid order, the respondents were directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner and dispose the same in
accordance with law.

¶18

2. Since the petitioner's representation was rejected
once again, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.33575
of 2005. By an order dated 20.10.2005, the said writ petition
was disposed favourably by directing the second respondent to
dispose the representation of the petitioner in the light of the
Medical Expert's Report. This order culminated in an interim
order of the respondents dated 20.10.2005.

¶19

3. The petitioner was thereafter appointed in terms of an
interim order of this Court in W.P.No.3444 of 2006 dated
22.03.2006 with the following observations:-

¶20

“ 5/ ghh;it ehd;fpy; fhDk; fojj;jpy; ,af;Feh; kw;Wk; fz;fhzpg;ghsh; gpuhe;jpa fz; Muha;r;rp kw;Wk; muR fz; kUj;Jtkid. brd;id mth;fs;. muR jdJ fojk; vz;/130523-fhty;3-2004?11. cs;Jiw ehs; 28/10/2005?,y; fhty;Jiw gzpf;F bjhpt[ bgWk; egh;fs;. fz;fspy; nyrpf; mWit rpfpr;ir kw;Wk; vf;irkh; (Lasik Laser Surgery/Excimer Laser Surgery) mWit rpfpr;ir bra;J mth;fsJ fz;ghh;itia rhp bra;J ,Ug;ghh;fnsahdhy;. mth;fs; fhty;Jiw neuo epakdg; gjtpf;F jFjpaw;wth;fshf mwptpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutpl;L cs;sjhy;. nkw;go jdJ ,U fz;fspYk; nyrh; mWit rpfpr;ir bra;J jd;Dila fz;ghh;itiar; rhp bra;J ,Ug;gjhy; nkw;go kUj;Jtkid kUj;Jtf; FG mtiu kUj;Jt hPjpahf jFjpatw;wth; vd;W mwptpj;Js;sJ/

¶21

6/ ///////////// 7/ ////////////// 8/ nkw;go brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; Mizf;nfw;g. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapy; cs;s ePjpg;nguhizapd; ,Wjp Mizf;F cl;gl;L md;dhh; ,uz;lhk; epiy fhtyuhf jw;fhypfkhf gzp epakdk; bra;ag;gl;L mLj;J eilbgw ,Uf;Fk; ,uz;lhk; epiy fhtyh; gapw;rpf;F mDg;gg;gLthh; vd;w tptuk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ”

¶22

4. Thereafter, another order was passed by this Court on
25.01.2008 in W.P.No.3273 of 2006. The Government Order bearing
Ref.No.130523/Pol.III/04-11, Home Department, dated 28.10.2005
and appointment order No.3/2005 dated 28.12.2005 on the file of
the Director General of Police the second respondent herein
stood quashed with a direction to the second respondent to issue
order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Grade-II
Police Constable.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

5. The petitioner was eventually issued with an
appointment order dated 30.01.2008. Mean while, the
petitioner's batchmates who participated in the selection
process during 2001-2002 Recruitment had been issued with an
appointment order earlier in 2003 and were sent for training on
15.09.2005.

¶25

6. It is the case of the petitioner that for the delay in
getting appointed was wholly because of various orders which
passed by the respondents and that the petitioner was not
treated on par with his batchmates. It is submitted that the
failure of the respondents cannot come in the way of grant of
seniority notionally to the petitioner on par with his
batchmates.

¶26

7. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned
senior counsel submitted that the issue is now covered by the
following decisions:-

¶27

(i) P.Govindaraju and another Vs The Secretary to
Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and another
passed in W.P.Nos.19914 & 19915 of 2012 dated 04.07.2014.

¶28

(ii) V.Viswanathan Vs The Director General of Police,
Chennai and another passed in W.P.No.19010 of 2017 dated
02.08.2021

¶29

(iii) K.Vijayachandran Vs The Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Fort St.Goerge, Chennai and another passed in
W.P.No.30089 of 2017 dated 24.08.2021.

¶30

8. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the learned
Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the
petitioner was appointed only on 30.01.2008 and since the
petitioner have not served for almost five years, he cannot
claim seniority/parity along with the batchmates. It is
submitted that the petitioner admittedly suffered from defects
in his eye sight and therefore his selection was not approved by
the respondents and since the order came to be passed by the
Court subsequently in an interim order dated 22.03.2006 and
final order dated 25.01.2008 in W.P.No.3273 of 2006, the
petitioner was appointed. It is submitted that without serving
in the police force/police department for a period of five

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

years, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any
seniority/parity.

¶33

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate for the respondents. I have perused
the orders passed by this Court in the case of the petitioner
which ultimately led to his appointment in the year 2008 and the
orders that came to be passed in the context of similarly placed
persons.

¶34

10. The fact remains that the petitioner had cleared
examinations and was called for medical test. It is only at the
stage of medical test the petitioner was disqualified on the
ground that he had defective eye sight. However, the fact
remains that the petitioner had undergone the laser treatment
and had removed the defect in the eye sight which led to be the
order of this Court dated 25.01.2008 in W.P.No.3273 of 2006.
Thereafter, the petitioner has been appointed as Grade-II Police
Constable with the respondents with effect from 30.01.2008.
Prior to the aforesaid date, the petitioner had also under gone
training pursuant to the interim order of this Court. The delay
in getting appointed with the respondents was not on account of
the fault of the petitioner but on account of the stand taken by
the respondents in not appointing the petitioner due to the
apparent defects found by them in his eye sight.

¶35

11. The facts remains that the petitioner has been found
eligible to be appointed as Grade-II Police Constable by the
decision of this Court by its order dated 25.01.2008. Under
similar circumstances, this Court has ordered notional
promotions/seniority to be given to similarly placed persons in
three years which has been cited by the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner.

¶36

12. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition stands
allowed with consequential relief to the petitioner. The
respondents are therefore directed to carry out the necessary
corrections in the service register of the petitioner by
refixing the seniority of the petitioner along with the
batchmates who were participated in the Recruitment called for
during 2001-2002 Recruitment within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

13. This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above
observations. No costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

arb

¶44

To

¶45

1.The Secretary to the Government,
 Home Department,
 Secretariat,
 Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶46

2.The Director General of Police,
 Chennai – 4.
+1cc to M/s.M.Muthappan, Advocate SR.No.44169

¶47

W.P.No.33749 of 2016

¶48

NK(CO)
RVM(27/09/2021)

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Senthil Kumar v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Senthil Kumar v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Barathidhashan Vs The District Collector

C.Sadasivam Vs The State of TamilNadu Rep by

R.Palanivel Vs The Director of Municipal Administration

J.Parthiban Vs The Managing Director

N.T.Senthil Kumar Vs The Director General of Police

K.Balasubramaniyan,M.a., Vs The Principal Secretary to Government