Allowed

M.Prabakaran v. The Secretary to the Government

Madras HC29 Oct 2025WP(MD)/28343/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police constable's seniority was not refixed with his 2012-2013 batchmates because a pending criminal case delayed his appointment; the case was closed as a mistake of fact and his later request was rejected as time-barred under Section 40(6). The Court held the proviso excludes mistake-of-fact cases from limitation, quashed the rejection, and directed seniority refixation.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Prabakaran Vs The Secretary to the Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.28343 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.28343 of 2023

¶7

M.Prabakaran ... 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, O/o.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

¶11

3.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai - 7.

¶12

4.The Additional Commissioner of Police, O/o.Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai - 7. 1/7

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.28343 of 2023

¶15

5.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve – II, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in Rc.No.Estt.5(4)/146/22539/2020 dated 09.01.2022 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to refix the petitioner's seniority on par with his batch mates provisionally selected for the year 2012-2013.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.01.2022 passed by the third respondent rejecting the petitioner's request to refix the petitioner's seniority on par with his batchmates previously selected for the year 2012-2013.

¶21

Due to a criminal case pending against the petitioner, there was a delay in the issuance of the appointment order to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, the said criminal case was

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.28343 of 2023

¶25

closed as a 'mistake of fact'. Since the criminal case has been closed as the 'mistake of fact', it is deemed that the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case. However, due to the pendency of the criminal case earlier, the seniority was not refixed for the petitioner along with his batchmates previously selected for the year 2012-2013. A request was made by the petitioner to refix the seniority on par with his batchmates previously selected in the year 2012-2013 and the same has been rejected under the impugned order dated 09.01.2022 on the ground that since the petitioner has made a request after the period of three years from the date of his appointment, he is not entitled to refix his seniority as per Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Services) Act, 2016.

¶26

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents before this Court, the respondents have reiterated the contents of the impugned order. However, the very same issue was the subject matter of consideration by various decisions of this Court which includes the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30.06.2023 passed in W.P.(MD).No.26590 of 2022 in the case of M.M.Muthumari Vs. The Director General of Police (Law and Order, O/o. the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai-4 and others. In identical circumstances, the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision has 3/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.28343 of 2023

¶29

considered Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Services) Act, 2016, by holding that the said provision itself makes it clear that the limitation will not be applicable to cases of rectifying orders resulting from mistake of facts. Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Services) Act, 2016, reads as follows:

¶30

“ Application for the revision of seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service, class, category or grade or within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority, as the case may be. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not, however, be applicable to cases of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts .”

¶31

The learned Single Judge, in the aforesaid decision, in similar circumstances, has held that the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the seniority list of the year 2012 is a mistake of fact. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner therein in the recruitment batch of the year 2012 at the appropriate place.

¶32

4/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.28343 of 2023

¶35

In the present case, for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner herein has also been deprived of his seniority on par with his batchmates previously selected for the year 2012-2013. Therefore, the petitioner's seniority has to be refixed on par with his batchmates previously selected for the year 2012-2013. By total non-application of mind to the proviso to Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Services) Act, 2016, which makes it clear that the limitation period of three years shall not be made applicable to cases of rectifying orders resulting from mistake of fact, the third respondent has passed the impugned order on 09.01.2022.

¶36

In view of the same, the impugned order has to be quashed and this

¶37

writ petition will have to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.01.2022 passed by the third respondent is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to fix the petitioner's seniority on par with his batchmates previously selected for the year 2012-2013, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶38

29.10.2025

¶39

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG

¶40

5/7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.28343 of 2023

¶43

¶44