Surendarakumar.M v. The Director General Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI M.Surendrakumar

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to fix the petitioner's seniority on par with the petitioner's batch mates recruited in the year 2012-2013, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 11.04.2019 and 17.02.2020, submitted to the first respondent in person in the light of the proceedings passed by the first respondent in C.No.3362/Rect(2) 2016, dated 11.11.2016, within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents :Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to fix the petitioner's seniority, on par with his batch mates, in the light of the proceedings of the first respondent in C.No.3362/Rect(2) 2016, dated 11.11.2016 and also considering the petitioner's representations, dated 11.04.2019 and 17.02.2020. 2.By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3.The case of the petitioner is that he is working as police constable in Armed Reserve, Dindigul from 2015 onwards. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has made representations to the respondents on 11.04.2019 and 1/3

17.02.2020, for fixing his seniority and the same was not considered so far. Hence, this writ petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied on the order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.25132 of 2018, dated 03.01.2019 that similar relief has been granted by this Court to similarly placed persons.

5.Mr.Nirmal Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the second respondent is the competent authority to send the proposal to the first respondent, with regard to the seniority. If any such proposal has been made by the second respondent, it would be considered within a reasonable time by the first respondent.

6. In view of the submissions made by the counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to send the proposal, if he is eligible, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such receipt of proposal, if any made by the second respondent, the first respondent shall consider the same and take a decision within four weeks from thereon. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vrn Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To 1.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2/3

2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-3344[F] dated 01/02/2022 ) ORDER MADE IN 31.01.2022 PKP/08.03.2022/3P/4C 3/3