Dismissed

A.Elumalai v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC28 Nov 2025WA/3601/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-Court appeal challenged a Government Order mandating a common examination for in-service and open-market candidates for Police Sub-Inspector posts under a Supreme Court direction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the direction binding and the order justified as no examination had commenced.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; the intra-court appeal is dismissed and the impugned Government Order remains in force.

A.Elumalai Vs the Additional Chief Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.11.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶7

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶8

A.Elumalai

¶9

S.Aravinthasamy

¶10

S.Kathiravan

¶11

R.Muthupandi

¶12

Mathi

¶13

S.Kumaresan

¶14

M.Jayalakshmi Appellants

¶15

Vs.

¶16

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Police-III) Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶17

The Inspector General of Police/Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Egmore, Chennai – 8. .. Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against

¶19

the order made in W.P.No.37615 of 2025 dated 08.10.2025.

¶20

For the Appellants : Mr.M.S.Soundararajan For the Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader

¶21

Page 1 of 10

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶24

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

¶25

The present intra-Court appeal has been directed against the

¶26

order passed by the Writ Court dated 08.10.2025 made in W.P.No.37615 of 2025.

¶27

The present appellants are the writ petitioners, who are already working in the Tamil Nadu Police Service at various capacities and they are the aspirants to participate in the selection process by way of direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Taluk) as well as the Sub-Inspectors of Police, Tamil Nadu Special Police.

¶28

Originally, an advertisement was issued in this regard by the respondents, that is the Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board¹ , that is the second respondent herein, on 04.04.2025, inviting applications from open-market candidates to participate in the examination to be conducted in this regard.

¶29

Though such notification was issued on 04.04.2025, on

¶30

1 In short, "TNUSRB".

¶31

Page 2 of 10

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶34

01.05.2025, the Hon'be Supreme Court of India has come out with a judgment in the matter of R. Ranjith Singh and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.² , where, a set of directions have been given. One of the directions is Direction No.28(e), which reads thus:-

¶35

“26(e) The State Government shall hereinafter conduct one common examination for 100% direct recruitment for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police which includes 80% from open market and 20% from in-service candidates and their seniority shall be assigned based upon the marks obtained by individual candidates/rank assigned by appointing authority in the list of selected candidates.”

¶36

Therefore, it was a mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that, the State Government shall hereby conduct one common examination for 100% direct recruitment to appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, which includes 80% from open market and 20% from the in-service candidates.

¶37

In tune with the said directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Director General of Police has written to the Government. The Government, having accepted the same,

¶38

2 Civil (Appeal) No.6307 of 2025

¶39

Page 3 of 10

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶42

issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.410, Home (Police - III)³ Department dated 18.08.2025, whereby, the following orders have been passed:

¶43

“7. the Director General of Police / Head of Police Force has, therefore, requested to issue necessary orders in line with the proposed norms so as to enable the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board to proceed with the forthcoming recruitment.

¶44

8. The Government after careful examination, have decided to accept the proposal of the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force, Chennai. Accordingly, in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court of India in para28(2) of its order eighth read above, the Government direct the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board to conduct a common examination for both 20% departmental and 80% open candidates in the direct recruitment of SubInspector of Police (Taluk/Armed Reserve/Tamil Nadu Special Police) henceforth. The Government also issue new procedures to be adopted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Sservices Recruitment Board in the common recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk/Armed Reserve/Tamil Nadu Special Police) as annexed to this order.

¶45

9. Necessary amendments will be issued to the relevant Service Rules separately.”

¶46

Challenging the said order, the present appellants/writ petitioners, who are the Departmental candidates, have approached

¶47

the Writ Court by filing the said writ petition seeking quashment of 3 For brevity, "G.O.Ms.No.410".

¶48

Page 4 of 10

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶51

G.O.Ms.No.410, thereby, they wanted to have a separate selection process for the Departmental candidates, as there should not be any common examination combined with the open-market candidates with same syllabus or same examination.

¶52

Having considered the said challenge being made by these appellants/writ petitioners, the learned Writ Court, taking note of the input of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R. Ranjith Singh (cited supra ), has ultimately dismissed the writ petition through the impugned order dated 08.10.2025.

¶53

8.1. Attempts have been made by Mr.M.S.Soundararajan , learned counsel appearing for the appellants to state that, once a notification having been issued on 04.04.2025, the same should not have been withdrawn by issuing fresh notification on 18.08.2025 by citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 01.05.2025.

¶54

8.2. He would also submit that, if at all any law has been declared by giving directions to the concerned State Government to go on with the common examination for both the candidates, that is

¶55

Page 5 of 10

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶58

the Departmental candidates as well as the open-market candidates, that law would prevail only from 01.05.2025, that is the date on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed the said order.

¶59

8.3. Therefore, that would no way have any impact over the notification already been issued by the TNUSRB on 04.04.2025, accordingly, as per the earlier notification, the selection process should go on and hence, the present Government Order, that is G.O.Ms.No.410 dated 18.08.2025 since takes away the right accrued already on the Departmental candidates, the same ought to have been quashed. When this plea was raised, the said plea has not been considered in proper perspective by the learned Judge, therefore, it is to be interfered with

¶60

We are not impressed with the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners for the simple reason that, once the law having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the order dated 01.05.2025, by that time, though notification has been issued on 04.04.2025, nothing has been moved. No examination has been conducted and only applications were called for. At that time, the Authority or the

¶61

Page 6 of 10

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶64

Recruiting Agency who has issued such notification is very much empowered to withdraw such notification to rectify any small defects, where, the entire notification could be withdrawn or an addendum or a corrigendum could be issued. This is the normal procedure.

¶65

Here, in the case in hand, since the entire pattern has been changed as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the order dated 01.05.2025, this development necessitated and the State Government to issue G.O.Ms.No.410 dated 18.08.2025 and the reasons have been clearly earmarked in the said Government Order itself, which has been considered by the learned Judge in the teeth of the mandatory directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶66

It is a settled proposition that, once a law is declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the directions are given under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is binding upon all the parties, much less, the State Government or the present appellants. Therefore, they have no right to challenge G.O.Ms.No.410 dated 18.08.2025 and hence, the dismissal faced by them at the hands of the Writ Court through the order impugned is

¶67

Page 7 of 10

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

W.A.No.3601 of 2025

¶70

a justifiable one.

¶71

In that view of the matter, we do not have any reason to interfere with the order impugned, as a result of which, the appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.29711 of 2025 is closed.

¶72

(R.S.K., J.) (K.G.T., J) 28.11.2025

¶73

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No

¶74

(drm)

¶75

Page 8 of 10

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

W.A.No.3601 of 2025