Dismissed¶¶44

Pradeep v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Dec 2025WA(MD)/3248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sub-Inspector recruitment Tamil Nadu; 20% in-service candidate quota; five years completed service cut-off date 01.07.2024; notification dated 04.04.2025; G.O.Ms.No.168 Home (Police VI) Department dated 02.03.2017; age 47 and five years service eligibility; Tamilnadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board; prior-year practice 2017-2024 cannot justify departure ('that wrong cannot justify another wrong'); writ appeal against Single Judge order in W.P.(MD)No.32284 of 2025 dated 12.11.2025; dismissed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; 18.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the recruitment notification is dated 04.04.2025, eligibility under the 20% in-service quota must be reckoned with reference to 01.07.2024, being 1st July of the year preceding the notification, in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 02.03.2017. ¶¶42

Pradeep Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who had not completed five years of service as on 01.07.2024, is eligible under the 20% in-service quota for the Sub-Inspector recruitment notified on 04.04.2025, given that the amended Rules prescribe that the requisite five years of service shall be reckoned as on 1st July of the year preceding the notification for selection, notwithstanding that previous years' notifications used a cut-off falling within the year of the notification.

¶¶36

Court's answer

¶¶42

Ratio / Principle

The fact that the amended cut-off rule was not followed in the recruitments conducted during 2017-2024 cannot justify departing from it in the present recruitment; that wrong cannot justify another wrong.

¶¶42

Key takeaways

The order passed by the learned Single Judge has to be sustained, and accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (W.A.(MD)No.3248 of 2025) dismissed by the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Mr. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan) on 18.12.2025. The appellant, an in-service Police Constable aspiring for appointment as Sub-Inspector under the 20% quota earmarked for in-service candidates, challenged the cut-off date of 01.07.2024 fixed for reckoning the requisite five years of service, contending that earlier notifications fixed the cut-off within the year of notification and that he was prejudiced by the changed Rule for the notification dated 04.04.2025. The Court held that, in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.168, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 02.03.2017 (eligibility: 47 years of age and five years of completed service, reckoned as on 1st July of the year preceding the notification), eligibility had to be reckoned as on 01.07.2024; non-compliance with the amendment in recruitments during 2017-2024 could not justify another wrong. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.32284 of 2025 dated 12.11.2025 was sustained, the appeal was dismissed, connected C.M.P.(MD)No.20202 of 2025 was closed, and there was no order as to costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.3248 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.3248 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.20202 of 2025

Pradeep

... Appellant

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

¶11

Rep.by its Secretary (Home Department),

¶12

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

¶13

Chennai-600 009.

¶14

2.The Director General of Police, Head of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore,

¶15

Chennai-600 004.

¶16

3.The Chairman,

¶17

Tamilnadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,

¶18

Egmore, Chennai.

¶19

4.The Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

W.A.(MD)No.3248 of 2025

¶24

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to

¶25

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.32284 of 2025 dated 12.11.2025.

¶26

For Appellant	: Mr.K.K.Samy
For Respondents	: Mr.Veerakathiravan
	Additional Advocate General
	assisted by Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
	Additional Government Pleader

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

¶29

The appellant herein is a Police Constable and an in-service candidate, aspiring for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector under the 20% quota earmarked for in-service candidates. Unfortunately, on the date of notification, the cut-off date for requisite completion of five years of service was fixed as 01.07.2024, which the appellant had not completed.

¶30

2.Referring to the recruitment notifications of previous years,

¶31

the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in all earlier recruitments, the cut-off date for determining eligibility fell within the year of the notification and not the preceding year. However, for the first time, the Recruitment Rules were modified to the disadvantage of the 2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.A.(MD)No.3248 of 2025

¶34

appellant by fixing the date for reckoning the required period of service as 01.07.2024, i.e., the year preceding the notification for selection.

¶35

3.The cause of grievance espoused by the learned counsel for

¶36

the appellant is that for the recruitment of Sub Inspector, both direct and in-service candidate, notification was published on 04.04.2025. If the cut of date was fixed as it was in the previous year notifications, then the petitioner will be fully eligible to participate. However, by changing the Rule and prescribing that the requisite five years of service in the respective category should be reckoned as on 1st July of the year preceding the notification for selection, the appellant has been seriously prejudiced.

¶37

4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the service rules had been amended vide G.O.Ms.No.168, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 02.03.2017, wherein the eligibility for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the 20% in-service candidate quota was prescribed as 47 years of age and five years of completed service. For the purpose of reckoning the said period of service, 1st July of the year preceding the notification has been fixed as the cut-off date. Since the

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.(MD)No.3248 of 2025

¶41

notification is dated 04.04.2025, the eligibility has to be reckoned with reference to 01.07.2024 and not 01.07.2025 as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶42

5.This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, since it is in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 02.03.2017. No doubt, the said amendment had not been followed during the previous year recruitments conducted during the year 2017 - 2024. However, that wrong cannot justify another wrong. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has to be sustained.

¶43

6.Accordingly, the present writ appeal challenging the order of

¶44

the learned Single is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 18.12.2025

¶46

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta 4/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.A.(MD)No.3248 of 2025