HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.(MD).Nos.7350, 21789 & 25923 of 2022 & W.P.(MD)No.17294 of 2020 & W.A.(MD)Nos.1191, 1192 & 1159 to 1165 of 2020 & W.P.Nos.16349 of 2023 & W.P.Nos.14645 & 14646 of 2016 & W.P.No.20152 of 2020 & W.P.No.21013 of 2024 and W.A.Nos.457 & 459 of 2026 and connected miscellaneous petitions [W.P.(MD).No.7350 of 2022] 1. M.Mahendran 2. K.Chithravel .. Petitioners Vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Through its Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai – 9. 2. The Director General of Police O/o. The Director General of Police Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
27.04.2026 27.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.7350, 21789 & 25923 of 2022 &
W.P.(MD)No.17294 of 2020 & W.A.(MD)Nos.1191, 1192 &
1159 to 1165 of 2020 & W.P.Nos.16349 of 2023 & W.P.Nos.14645 &
14646 of 2016 & W.P.No.20152 of 2020 & W.P.No.21013 of 2024 and
W.A.Nos.457 & 459 of 2026 and connected miscellaneous petitions
[W.P.(MD).No.7350 of 2022]
1. M.Mahendran
2. K.Chithravel .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Through its Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General of Police
O/o. The Director General of Police Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. C.Gangatharan
4. J.Jayaseelan
5. V.Maheswaran
6. T.Nagarajan
7. A.Muthuselvam
8. K.C.Ramasamy
9. D.Venkadesan
[R3 to R9 impleaded vide order dated 21.06.2023
in W.M.P.No.17694 of 2023 in
W.P.(MD)No.7350 of 2022] .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.7350 of 2022 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of declaration, declaring that the Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) under the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, as illegal and unconstitutional with reference to preparation of list for promotion to the posts as range basis and consequently directing the respondents to draw state seniority list for promotion by considering the date of their enlistment as seniority within the time period stipulated by this Court.
[W.P.(MD).No.21789 of 2022]
1. G.Vadamalai
2. V.Harikrishnan
3. T.Senthil Kumar
4. D.Stephen
5. M.Somasundaram
6. M. Abdullah Sahib
7. B.Philip Xavier
8. D.Sivakumar
9. K.Balamurugan
10. R.Kannan
11. G.Ramalingam
12. N.Sekar
13. K.Raja
14. G.Swaminathan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Home,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Additional Director General of Police
Administration, No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Trichy Range, Trichy District – 620 020.
5. Kavitha
6. Arjunan
7. Periyasamy
8. Thiyagarajan
9. Anbalagan
10. Muthaiyan
11. Manikandan
12. Dhanavel
13. Gandhiraj
14. Thangaraj
15. Sankar
16. Kathirvel
17. Vijayakumar
18. Sridhar
19. Chandabose
20. Rajappan
21. Kolanchi
22. Velusamy
23. Ulaganathan
24. Selvanayagam
25. Seeman
26. Jegankumar
27. Chandirabose
28. K.Venkatesh Babu
29. S.Arngaraj
30. D.Viswanathan
31. S.Chinnadurai
32. S.Muthukrishnan
33. R.Stephen
34. M.Alagar
35. M.Sakthivel
36. P.Rathinam
37. P.Velmurugan
38. S.Senthilkumar
39. M.Kumaran
40. R.Sundarapandiyan
41. T.Ramesh
42. S.P.Singaram .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.21789 of 2022 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent Additional Director General of Police in Rc.No.10217/NGB V(2)/2019, dated 25.08.2022 revising the ‘C’ list of Head Constables (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors (Armed Reserve) for the year 2015 and 2017, quash the same as illegal and void.
[W.P.(MD).No.25923 of 2022]
1. R.Muthukumar
2. Raja
3. A.Dhanasekaran
4. G.Rajendran
5. S.Kamala
6. D.R.Ravindran
7. P.Maniraj
8. S.Kaangu
9. S.Kanaiyaram
10. R.Saravana Kumar .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Through its Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General of Police
O/o. The Director General of Police
Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.25923 of 2022 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of declaration, declaring that the Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) under the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, as illegal and unconstitutional with reference to preparation of list for promotion to the posts as range basis and consequently directing the respondents to draw state seniority list for promotion by considering the date of their enlistment as seniority within the time period stipulated by this Court.
[W.P.(MD).No.17294 of 2020]
1. T.Bala Selvan
2. S.Sam Sundar Singh
3. S.Justin Paul
4. J.John Wisely
5. J.Deva Shayam
6. M.Mahendran
7. V.Madhu Soodhanan
8. S.Kavi
9. S.Suresh
10. S.Anandha Raj
11. S.Gobi
12. P.Abraham Rao
13. S.Suresh Kumar
14. T.Justin
15. T.Renganathan
16. J.Alexander
17. G.Amathu Arasu
18. C.Mohan Raj
19. R.Murugaboopathi
20. V.Murugesan
21. C.Sudha Rani
22. D.Jameela Anna Selvi
23. M.Mahalingam .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Through its Secretary,
Home Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General of Police
O/o. The Director General of Police
Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.17294 of 2020 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order
Rc.No.54321/NGBV(2)/2019, dated 26.02.2020 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal insofar as petitioners are concerned and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioners as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) considering the dae of their enlistment seniority.
[W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2020]
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary
Department of Home, Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police No.1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Trichy Range, Trichy District – 620 020. .. Appellants
Vs.
1. S.Mohan Raj
2. R.Baskar
3. G.Sivasubramanian
4. K.Murugesan
5. K.Venkatesh Babu
6. S.Arngaraj
7. D.Viswanathan
8. S.Chinnadurai
9. S.Muthukrishnan
10. R.Stephen
11. M.Alagar
12. M.Sakthivel
13. P.Rathinam
14. P.Velmurugan
15. S.Senthilkumar
16. M.Kumaran
17. R.Sundarapandiyan
18. T.Ramesh
19. S.P.Singaram .. Respondents
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1191 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.3528 of 2019 etc., batch cases.
[W.A.(MD).No.1192 of 2020]
1. The Secretary to Government Home Police Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Ramanathapuram Range, Ramanathapuram .. Appellants
Vs.
1. S.Parthiban
2. T.Kannan
3. N.Balasubramanian
4. A.Ilangovan .. Respondents
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1192 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.1554 of 2019 etc., batch cases.
[W.A.Nos.1159 to 1165 of 2020]
1. The Secretary to Government Home Police Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Madurai Range, Madurai.
4. The Chairman
Range Promotion Board,
Madurai Range & Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District.
1. A.Kannan Vs. .. Appellants in all the writ appeals
2. P.Lingiah
1. K.Thulasidass .. Respondents in
W.A.(MD).No.1159/2020
2. P.Devadoss
1. D.Ravichandran .. Respondents in
W.A.(MD).No.1160/2020
2. P.Devadoss
1. M.Sivakumar .. Respondents in
W.A.(MD).No.1161/2020
2. P.Devadoss
1. C.Chinnasamy .. Respondents in
W.A.(MD).No.1162/2020
2. P.Lingiah 1. S.Ramasamy .. Respondents in
W.A.(MD).No.1163/2020
2. P.Devadoss
1. M.James .. Respondents in
W.A.(MD).No.1164/2020
2. P.Devadoss .. Respondents in
W.A.(MD).No.1165/2020
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1159 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.3211 of 2019 etc., batch cases.

Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1160 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.3206 of 2019 etc., batch cases.
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1161 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.3210 of 2019 etc., batch cases.
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1162 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.3209 of 2019 etc., batch cases.
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1163 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.3208 of 2019 etc., batch cases.
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1164 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.3207 of 2019 etc., batch cases.
Prayer in W.A.(MD)No.1165 of 2020 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD).No.3094 of 2019 etc., batch cases.
[W.P.No.16349 of 2023]
1. P.Jayan
2. K.Kandaswamy
3. M.Sekar
4. Y.Bharath
5. K.Babu
6. K.M.Abdul Majeeth
7. P.S.Rajendran
8. P.A.Krishnaraj
9. B.Sekar
10. D.Gnanavel
11. I.Mohamed Mohideen Shah
12. K.Chandramohan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government Home (Pol. II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General of Police
Head of Police Force – Tamil Nadu, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City, Veppery, Chennai – 7.
4. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City, Chennai.
5. The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram City, Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.16349 of 2023 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned memorandum issued by the second respondent in Rc.No.NGB-
I(1)/E/0013/2023 dated 26.04.2023 and the consequential order of the third respondent in Rc.No.Estt.II(3)/52/29937/2023 dated 04.05.2023 for drawal of ‘C’ List of Sub-Inspector of Police (AR) fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (AR) for the year 2023, quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of their name as per date of enlistment seniority in the cadre of Gr.II Police Constable by taking into consideration the Judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1554 of 2019 etc. batch dated 05.01.2020 and include their name in the ‘C’ List of Sub-Inspector of Police (AR) fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (AR) for the year 2023 and promote them as Inspector of Police (AR) with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
[W.P.No.14645 of 2016]
V.Mahendran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government Home (Police) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai,
Veppery, Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.14645 of 2016 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.187/6905/PaPe.7(1)/2015 dated 07.03.2016 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police on par with his junior by taking into consideration of his entry level seniority.
[W.P.No.14646 of 2016]
P.Raj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government Home (Police) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai,
Veppery, Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.14646 of 2016 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.187/6905/PaPe.7(1)/2015 dated 07.03.2016 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police on par with his junior by taking into consideration of his entry level seniority.
[W.P.No.20152 of 2020]
K.Balaji .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai – 600 004. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.20152 of 2020 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of declaration, declaring the records relating to the memorandum issued by the second respondent in Rc.No.NGB1(1)/007979/2020, dated 19.11.2020 as null and void as the Division of Zonal Promotion passed against the order passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.1554, 3094, 3206, 23211, 3206 to 3211 and 3528 of 2019, dated 06.01.2020 and consequently direct the respondents to prepare the state-wise seniority list.
[W.P.No.21013 of 2024]
1. G.Thangaraj
2. B.Loganathan
3. R.Ramachandran
4. L.Anandarajan
5. R.Kulanthai Samy
6. R.Murugesan
7. V.Kannathal
8. J.Gopinath
9. S.Baskaran
10. J.Jose Salim Kumar .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government Home (Police) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai,
Veppery, Chennai – 600 007.
4. R.Rangarajan
5. S.Shanmugaraja
6. R.Balamurugan
7. P.Dharmaraj
8. A.Selvanayagam
9. K.Venkatesan
10. R.Mahendran
11. I.Suresh
12. S.Devanathan
13. P.J.Mohankumar
14. S.Natarajan
15. P.Sivakumar
16. P.Kannan
17. M.Kumararaja
18. T.Sathishkumar .. Respondents
(R4 to R18 impleaded vide order dated 18.02.2026 made in W.M.P.No.7159 of 2026 in W.P.No.21013 of 2024)
Prayer in W.P.No.21013 of 2024 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Rc.NGB-I(1)/E/0020/2024, dated 09.07.2024 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in
Rc.No.Estt.II(3)/50/47288/2024 dated 18.07.2024 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to effect the promotion by taking into consideration of the entry level seniority or in alternate to promote the petitioners as Sub-Inspector of Police and the further promotion on par with their juniors.
[W.A.Nos.457 & 459 of 2026]
1. The Director General of Police Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore – 18. .. Appellants in
both the writ appeals Vs.
T.Senbagavadivu .. Respondent in
W.A.(MD).No.457/2026
M.Umarani .. Respondent in
W.A.(MD).No.459/2026
Prayer in W.A.No.457 of 2026 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment, dated 18.11.2022 made in W.P.No.15875 of 2019 and allow this Writ Appeal.
Prayer in W.A.No.459 of 2026 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the Judgment, dated 18.11.2022 made in W.P.No.15871 of 2019 and allow this Writ Appeal.
Case No. For Petitioner(s) / Appellant(s) For Respondent(s)
W.P.(MD).No.7350 of 2022 Ms.M.Muthu Yazhini for M/s.Lajapathy Roy &
Associates Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate
General assisted by Mr.S.John
J.Rajasingh, AGP for R1 and
R2
Mr.L.Chandrakumar for R3 to
R9
W.P.(MD).No.21789 of 2022 Mr.P.Godson Swaminath for M/s. Issac Chambers Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate
General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP for R1 to R4
Mr.V.Panneerselvam for R6 to R9 and R16 to R19
RR 21, 37, 39 and 40 – Not Ready in Notice
RR 5, 10 to 15, 20, 22 to 36,
38, 41 and 42 – No Appearance
W.P.(MD).No.25923 of 2022 Ms.M.Muthu Yazhini for M/s.Lajapathy Roy & Associates Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP for R1 and R2
W.P.(MD).No.17294 of 2020 Ms.M.Muthu Yazhini for M/s.Lajapathy Roy & Associates Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP for R1 and R2

Case No. For Petitioner(s) / Appellant(s) For Respondent(s)
W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2020 Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh,
AGP Mr.P.Godson Swaminath for M/s. Isaac Chambers for R1
W.A.(MD).No.1192 of 2020 and 1159 to 1165 of 2020 Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh,
AGP
W.P.No.16349 of 2023 Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP for R1 to R5
W.P.No.14645 of 2016 Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sivakumar Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP for R1 to R3
W.P.No.14646 of 2016 Mr.Ali Hassan Khan Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP for R1 to R3
W.P.No.20152 of 2020 Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP for R1 and R2
W.P.No.21013 of 2024 Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sivakumar Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP
for R1 to R3
Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for M/s. S.Nedunchezhiyan & Mr.J.Jayamalan for R4 to R18
W.A.Nos.457 and 459 of 2026 Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh,
AGP Mr.G.Bala
for M/s. Bala & Daisy
COMMON ORDER
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
The issue raised in this batch of cases since is one and the same, all these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The prayer sought for in these cases are two fold. In one set of cases, the prayer sought for is a writ of declaration declaring that the Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, as illegal and unconstitutional and for consequential relief and another set of cases were filed seeking a relief of quashment of C-list or promotion list issued by the employers / state police authorities in respect of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police or the Inspectors of Police as the case maybe and for consequential relief.
3. In both the set of prayers, the consequential relief was to seek a direction to the employer / respondents State to draw a list of seniority on the basis of State wide seniority based on the date of enlistment, i.e., from the Constabulary stage of police constables and accordingly give the promotion as per the seniority for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police or the Inspector of Police as the case may be.
4. Since the issue is common and facts are also similar, for the sake of brevity and for better understanding of the cases the facts projected in W.P.(MD).No.7350 of 2022 are traversed herein.
5. That the petitioners in this writ petition were selected and recruited as Grade II Police Constable and in respect of the first petitioner, he joined on 09.06.1993 as Grade II Police Constable and in respect of the second writ petitioner, he joined as Grade II Police Constable on 31.10.1997.
6. As per the procedure in vogue, the selection and recruitment was made by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board through a common recruitment for the cadre of Grade II Police Constable along with the post of Fireman and Jail Warden.
7. After having been selected, the selectees were posted as Grade IIPolice Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police and after working for some years, they would be transferred to Armed Reserve in various Districts or
Range. Insofar as these petitioners are concerned, they were allotted to Nilgris Range and Tuticorin Range or Nilgris District or Tuticorin District respectively.
8. As per the procedure which is in vogue, a police constable who has been recruited and enlisted as Grade II Police Constable would be given promotion as Grade I Police Constable on completion of 10 years successful completion as Grade II Police Constable. Thereafter on completion of five years service as Grade II Police Constable, he would be further promoted as
Head Constable and after total service of 25 years, i.e., 10+5+10, the Head Constable would be further promoted as Special Sub-Inspector. Then the next promotional avenue would be Sub-Inspector of Police which would always be made subject to availability of vacancies in the Armed Reserve and the next hierarchy of post for promotion is Inspector of Police.
9. It is the further case projected by the petitioners that originally thepost of Sub-Inspector of Police would be filled up under two method, one is Direct Recruitment, another is promotional method. Insofar as the promotional category is concerned, those who have completed this 25 years of total service and working as Head Constable (Armed Reserve) would be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by the
Range Promotion Board after conducting a test as per Rule 3(d)(iii) of the
Special Rules. However the said procedure of conducting a Range Promotion Board Test was dispensed with by deleting the same by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1055, Home (Police-III) Department, dated 01.11.2006, thereby since then the promotion would be made to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) merely on seniority and service record basis.
10. In this context, it is the further case of the petitioners that rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of the Special Rules prescribes the method of promotion to be followed and the same prescribes Range wise seniority. In other words even though the Grade II Police Constable were selected and recruited by a common selection method, they would be distributed to various Districts or Ranges and once they distributed to a particular District, their seniority would be maintained by the Range Promotion Board consisting of two three Districts or a City.
11. When that being so, the next level of promotion to the post of
Grade I Police Constable, Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police, all would be made only on the basis of the Range wise seniority. By virtue of this method being adopted by the employer, in some Ranges depending upon the availability of the vacancy, quick promotions would be given to these kind of incumbents to various stages like Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police, whereas in some other ranges, in view of want of vacancy such promotion would get delayed. Resultant situation would be, in some of the Ranges / Districts, Juniors would get promotion and in some of the Districts and Ranges, the Seniors would get stagnated without getting promotion. After getting promotions, transfers also would be made either on the Administrative grounds or on the request of the individuals and if they come and join in the desired Range or
District where they may occupy in the higher position like Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police or Inspector of Police as the case may be, whereas in the very same Range or District, the seniors of them, based on the enlistment originally made at the time of recruitment, would be working in the lower post for want of vacancy, thereby the Seniors have to work under the Juniors. This has completely shatter the morale of many number of incumbents in the police force in the State of Tamil Nadu as it create heavy heart burning among many number of police personnel in the State.
12. Therefore only in order to rectify this anomaly by operating the promotional avenue only on the basis of the State wide seniority instead of Range wise or District wise seniority many number of police personnel have been consistently making the plea and with the result only this kind of litigations have come.
13. In fact in earlier occasions at least two or three round of litigations were filed whenever such kind of C-list are issued by the employer / Home Department of the State fixing the seniority for promotion to various incumbents in the police force at the level of Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police and whenever such kind of C-list was published, challenging the same, the affected personnel had come to the Court where the verdict so far have been made are in favour of the employees to consider their case for giving promotion on the basis of the State wide seniority by taking into account of the date of enlistment for the purpose of making further promotions at various hierarchies like Head Constable, Sub Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police.
14. Despite these decisions have been made, the situation has not improved, as time time and again, the employer, i.e., the Home Department or Director General of Police or Head of the Police force show the rule, especially rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of the Special Rules as mentioned above, where the method of promotion as indicated therein is to be adopted only by preparing the seniority list by the Range Promotion Board by adopting the Range wise seniority, thereby the Seniors are denied promotions whereas the Juniors are getting promotion to various hierarchy level of post as indicated above.
15. Hence in order to rectify these anomaly and to correct the systemby adopting the State wide seniority since rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of the Special Rules is considered to be a hindrance, it triggered the writ petitioners to challenge the said rule and seeking for a writ of declaration declaring the said rule as unlawful and unconstitutional. That is how this writ petition had been filed.
16. Many number of writ petitions have been filed with the similar prayer and in some cases, the C-list or promotion panel prepared and released Range wise by the employer have been questioned and in all these cases, the consequential relief sought for is to give a direction to the employer, Home Department of the State to draw a State wide seniority list by dispensing with or doing away the method of adopting the Range wise seniority and accordingly, operate the promotions by strictly following the State wide seniority, thereby the Seniors would get promotion when their turn comes. This is how all these litigations had been placed before us in this batch of cases for adjudication and decision.
17. Before delve into the issue raised in this batch of cases, let us seewhat is the exact rule which is under challenge herein, i.e., rule 3(b)(ii)(b) which is extracted here under:
“3. Method of appointment and promotion
Added as per G.O.Ms.No.2611, Home (Pol III) Dated 19.11.84. (a) (I) Appointment to the several classes and categories shall be made as indicated in Annexure I.
Added in G.O.Ms.No.2611,
Home (Pol III) Dated 19.11.84. (ii) Persons who were already included in the ‘C’ list for a particular year but not promoted before the expiry of the validity of the said list shall be considered for a higher place in the list drawn in the subsequent years on merits of each case in preference to other persons included in ‘C’ list.

(b)(i) Promotion to the under mentioned posts shall be made on the grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal:

Inspectors, Inspector of Police
(Finger Print)
Senior Reporters, Shorthand Bureau, Vellore.
Sub Inspectors, Sub Inspectors
of Police (Finger Print) Inspector (Armed Reserve)
Sub Inspectors (Armed
Reserve)
Head Constables including Band Head Constables, Office of the Director General of Police, Chennai.
Reserve Head Constables including Armourers, Signallers and Motor Transport Drivers.

(ii) Such promotion shall be made from a list of qualified candidates suitable for promotion prepared and
finalized by

(a) The State Promotion Board constituted by the Govt. from time to time subject to the approval of the Director
General of Police in the case of promotion to the posts of Inspectors, Inspector (Finger
Print), Inspectors (Armed
Reserve) and Senior Reporters, Shorthand Bureau, Chennai, from the ranks of Sub Inspectors, Sub Inspector
(Finger Print), Sub-Inspectors (Armed Reserve) and Junior
Reporters, respectively.
(b) The Range Promotion

Substituted in G.O.Ms.No.91, Home (Pol VI) Department Dated 6.2.2001.
Boards in respect of various units as detailed below, subject to the approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Police or concerned Commissioners of Police in Cities and
Commissioner of Police,
Chennai, as the case may be, in respect of promotion from the posts of Head Constables to Sub Inspectors. (There shall be only one combined list for promotion from the rank of Head Constables to Sub
Inspectors)
The Range Promotion Board of the Range specified in column (1) of the Table below shall consist of the District and Unit specified in the corresponding entires in column (2) thereof.”

18. In the said Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, it has been made that the promotion shall be made from a list of candidates suitable for promotion prepared and finalised by the Range Promotion Board in respect of various units. The various units means, according to the rule, there are 27 such units have been mentioned like Chennai city Range, Chennai Urban, Kancheepuram, Crime Branch, Dindigul Range, Ramanathapuram Range, Madurai Range, Tirunelveli
Range, Vellore Range, Villupuram Range etc.,
19. The meaning thereby, in order to make promotion to the post of Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police, the incumbents Range wise seniority alone would be taken into account. Illustratively in Tirunelveli Range, there are three Districts included namely,Tirunelveli, Tuticorin and Kanniyakumari and in these three Districts, those who are working in the police force in the Armed Reserve would be put together to prepare a Range wise seniority list under various categories like Grade II Police Constable, Grade I Police Constable, Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police, accordingly on the basis of the vacancy that arise in these three Districts in the Tirunelveli Range, panel would be prepared by the Range Promotion Board under Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) as referred to above and accordingly, promotion would be given.
20. In this context, suppose in Tiruchirapalli City Police Range or
Chennai City Police Range, if vacancy arises in these categories, for which, seniority list is prepared on the basis of the Range wise seniority by the Range Promotion Board and accordingly if promotions are effected, because of want of vacancies, many incumbents under various categories in these ranges who are otherwise Seniors comparing with their batchmates who are spreading over various other Range in the State of Tamil Nadu would not be considered for promotion even though they are Seniors in State wide Seniority on the basis of the enlistment.
21. Because of this position of adopting the method of Range wise seniority for the purpose of promotion, in many Ranges seniors are getting stagnated without getting promotion, whereas Juniors in some Ranges are getting promotion. Because of this kind of anomaly and the promotion being provided to the Juniors, whereas it is denied or stagnated in respect of Seniors, the seniors are getting affected, that completely shatters the morale of the Senior police incumbents in the police force, thereby their morale is getting affected and that creates heavy heartburn among the rank and file of the police force throughout the State.
22. Only in this context, the challenge now has been made ultimatelyagainst rule 3(b)(ii)(b) on various grounds.
23. The learned Senior counsel and counsel appearing for the petitioners / employees have made elaborate submissions challenging the said Rule and the difficulties faced by senior incumbents as the juniors are getting quick promotions whereas seniors are denied such promotion only because of the method being adopted by the employer. It is their argument that, originally there was a Range Promotion Board Test conducted every year which was dispensed with by the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1055, Home Department, dated 01.11.2006, wherein the Range
Promotion Board Test was dispensed with and promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is granted based on seniority and service records.
24. In some of the cases based on 25 years seniority rule they got promotion to the post of Special Sub-Inspector and then Sub-Inspector of Police, where they successfully completed the probation and their name have been included in the B-list of Head Constable, Special Sub-Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2018. However till now they have not been given promotion and in fact by the impugned memorandum in some of the cases such kind of B-list have been cancelled or the names of these incumbents have been omitted to be considered for promotion.
25. There was an artificial cut-off date fixed as 31.12.2015. Those who have been appointed and promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) on regular basis on or before 31.12.2015 alone were considered to be promoted as Inspector of Police and those who have been given promotion subsequent to 31.12.2015 or become eligible to be promoted after 31.12.2015 would not be considered was the memorandum issued in this regard by the employer which was also under challenge.
26. It is their further argument that, the Grade II Police Constable are recruited by the Recruitment Board and after institutional training, they were directed to serve in the Battalions for the period of four years and thereafter transferred to either the District or City Armed Reserve depending upon the vacancies available. Each District / City has got different cadre strength in the cadre of Grade II Police Constable, Grade I Police Constable and Head Constable. In some Districts, promotion to the post of Head Constable is made much earlier than in some of the other Districts as well as in the city police.
27. Since the quick promotion could not be earned in majority Districts, the upgradation policy was introduced by the Government whereby a Grade II Police Constable on completion of 10 years service is upgraded as Grade I Police Constable, thereafter the Grade I Police
Constable on completion of five years of service is upgraded as Head Constable and the Head Constable on completion of 10 years of service is upgraded as Special Sub-Inspector of Police. However the further regular promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) is made by taking into consideration the seniority in the feeder category post namely the Sub-Inspector of Police Armed Reserve as well as the Date of Birth.
28. It is the further argument of them that, as per the service rules ifany Constable is recruited after 1997 by a common recruitment, the seniority is based on the marks obtained by him in the test held at the end of the institutional training conducted in the police recruitment school irrespective of following the rule of reservation at the time of recruitment.
29. Because of the Range wise seniority, in some Districts, the promotion to the post of Head Constable is quickly served, whereas in some Districts and in Chennai City Police, the promotion to the post of Head
Constable is based on completion of total service of 15 years as Grade II Police Constable which includes five years of Grade I Police Constable.
30. They referred to a decision of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.1554 of 2019 etc., batch where by an order dated 06.01.2020, this court quashing the memorandum of Director General of Police dated 21.12.2018, which was issued for promotion of C-list of Head Constable fit for promotion as SubInspector of Police for the year 2018 and directed to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police Armed Reserve on the basis of the seniority in the cadre of Grade II Police Constable. Therefore by virtue of the said Judgment, the entry level seniority as Grade II Police Constable is a criteria for consideration of claim for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Range Promotion Board. Hence the same criteria has to be followed while preparing the C-list of Sub-Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police.
31. It is their further submission that the Judgment of the Madurai
Bench of this Court, dated 06.01.2020 though had been appealed before Division Bench, which is still pending where no orders have been passed so far, therefore, according to them, the order dated 06.01.2020 is final.
32. Therefore their contention is that, there has been no nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved by artificially making a Range wise seniority for giving promotion to the Police Constables to various range of promotional post up to the level of Inspector of Police. The impugned rule namely Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) only speaks about the Range Promotion Board for preparation of the seniority list and on what basis such a Range Promotion Board has been constituted and why a Range wise seniority has been instituted upon despite the fact that the Recruitment is one and the same and there would be a single recruitment where all such incumbents are initially recruited and enlisted as Grade II Police Constable, is not known.
33. Therefore cumulatively the adoption of the method of Range wise seniority for giving promotion to the police personnel to various promotional categories like Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police is absolutely unjustifiable and unlawful and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution under service jurisprudence and therefore the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the said rules could be declared to be illegal and unconstitutional and a consequential direction to adopt the State wise seniority for giving promotion to these categories in the police force in the State of Tamil Nadu may be issued.
34. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners /employees and the learned Advocate General for the State. The learned Advocate General, Mr.P.S.Raman, while arguing the case was requested to get instructions from the Government as to whether the Government has got any proposal to resolve this issue amicably since the adoption of the Range wise seniority without any plausible reason for giving promotion to the police force under various categories as stated supra since creates lot of anomaly and thereby the morale of the police force is getting shattered, he had stated that the issue would be brought to the notice of the State Government and after having consultation with them, the necessary proposal to resolve the issue by adopting the State wide seniority atleast prospectively would be worked out and placed before this Court.
35. In this regard, the learned Advocate General had given certain statistical particulars as to how many such senior people who get affected because of the adoption of the Range wise seniority and in case if the Government has come forward to implement the State wise seniority prospectively what could be the consequences, where how many of the Seniors who are otherwise affected because of the Range wise seniority would get promotions by adopting the State wise seniority for whom whether the necessary vacancies are available and if not whether supernumerary vacancies can be created as a one time measure to adopt all these incumbents without disturbing the Juniors who already earned promotion by virtue of the Range wise seniority.
36. When such a submissions were made by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State having recorded the same we have passed the following order on 18.02.2026 :
“1. On the basis of the arguments advanced, on the earlier hearing, by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, the Court requested the learned Advocate General to get the stand of the Government of Tamil Nadu, regarding whether the State Wide Seniority, right from the inception of the Tamil Nadu Police Force, i.e. Enlistment of Grade II Head Constable Level, can be adopted and if so, at least prospectively if the State Wide Seniority System is adopted, because of the Range Wise Seniority hitherto followed, the affected members of the Force, who are otherwise eligible to get promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and further promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, but have been stagnated, without earning the said promotion, whether can be rescued, by creating supernumerary posts, wherever it is required, apart from filling up the available vacancies in two cadres, namely, Sub Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve.
2. On the said request made to the learned Advocate General appearing for the State to have a consultation with the Government of Tamil Nadu and report before this Court, today when the cases are taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate General, having consulted with the State Government, has made the following submissions:- i. That the Government, in principle, has come forward to implement the State Wide Seniority, instead of Range Wise Seniority, for the purpose of fixing the inter se seniority, among the members of the Force in various cadres, especially for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and also for further promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, prospectively.
ii. However, because of the implementation of theRange Wise Seniority, hither to had been made, at present, there are 296 Sub Inspectors, in the Armed Reserve, available to get promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve. However, the available vacancy for the post of Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, as of now, is only 106. Therefore, after filling up those 106 vacancies, still 190 incumbents are to be given promotion to the post of Inspector of Police in the Armed Reserve. 190 supernumerary posts in the cadre of Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve would be created by the Government, for which, the financial commitment would roughly be about Rs.1.8 crores.
iii. Like that, for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, there are 1335 members of the police force in the feeder category in the cadre of Head Constables, waiting to get promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Force. Whereas, as of now, only 309 vacancies are available. Therefore, after filling up those 309 vacancies, still 1026 personnel since have to be given promotion equal number of supernumerary posts in the cadre of Armed Reserve, would be created by the Government, for which there would be no financial implication, because these persons already are getting salary equal to Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, as already they have been functioning, as Special Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve.
iv. If these measures are taken, the incumbents, in the feeder category to getting promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police as well as Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, who have, otherwise so far, not been given promotion, because of adoption of Range Wise Seniority, would be benefited and by virtue of these promotions, the already promoted Sub Inspector of Police as well as Inspector of Police, based on the Range Wise Seniority, would not be reverted back and their salary also would be protected. However, their inter se seniority would be rearranged on the basis of State Wide Seniority, reckoning their initial enlistment as Head Constable, Grade II, for the purpose of fixing their inter se seniority, based on which, promotions, in future, would be operated among Sub Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police to be promoted. v. With regard to the promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, as per the sub rule, since only Range Promotion Board is empowered to make such promotions, necessary amendments since have to be made as a routine subordinate legislation, so, that would also be taken care of by the Government and at the earliest possible time, such an amendment would be made properly in the relevant rule. However, without waiting for the amendment to be made for the implementation of the State Wide Seniority prospectively and consequent promotions, by creating supernumerary posts as indicated above, would be immediately undertaken by the Government.
3. These submissions were made by the learned Advocate General, after getting necessary instructions from the Home Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Director General Police of Tamil Nadu.
4. We, after having recorded the said submissionsmade by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, are of the view, that regarding these measures now have been projected on behalf of the Government, in order to resolve the tangle, touching upon in this batch of litigations, which is a long pending issue, we direct the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of
Tamil Nadu as well as the Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, to file a status report in the form of an affidavit, along with necessary annexures, so that the Court can proceed further and pass suitable orders, considering the overall factual matrix of the case. For the aforesaid exercise, the learned Advocate General seeks time till 24.02.2026.
5. Post the matter on 24.02.2026 at 2.15 p.m.”
37. Again the case came up for further hearing on 24.02.2026 where on the basis of the request made by the learned Advocate General, we passed the following order :
“Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that, as per the earlier order of this Court dated 18.02.2026, the issue having been considered by the Director General of Police, some proposal had been forwarded to the Government which is under consideration with the Government, where it seems that, certain clarifications have been sought for by the Government with regard to financial implications and after verifying all these aspects, a clear policy decision for implementation of the State-wise Seniority at least prospectively as indicated in the order of the Court dated 18.02.2026 would be taken. In this regard, an affidavit would be filed by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu only indicating in-principle decision taken by the Government to implement the Statewise Seniority at least prospectively.
2. For such compliance, since the learned Advocate General seeks shorter accommodation, post these matters on 27.02.2026.”
38. Then the case came up for further hearing on 03.03.2026. An affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition, Excise Department, dated
27.02.2026 was filed before us by the learned Advocate General, where inter alia the following has been stated :
“5. It is also respectfully submitted that the said promotions to the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) and Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) as proposed supra are subject to following:-
i) The above promotions may be given effect prospectively to the existing service personnel by creating the necessary supernumerary posts immediately, in addition to the arising vacancies in the current year. The individuals will not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits retrospectively on par with their batchmates / juniors and also will not be entitled to claim pay anomalies arising among their batchmates and juniors due to promotion under the new method.
ii) Inter-se-seniority among the existing Head constables / SSIs /SIs those coming under the criteria (i) above, shall be fixed with respect to the date of enlistment as Grade -II Police Constable and with respect to their date of birth among the particular recruitment batch who were promoted/upgraded on the due date without any impediments.
iii) Grade – I Police Constables who were promoted / upgraded as Head Constables / SSIs as the case may be belatedly due to ineligibility viz., punishment undergone / relinquishment etc., by them in the post of Grade – 1 Police Constable / Head Constable will not be considered along with their batch mates. They will be considered on their turn.
iv) Juniors who have got their promotion earlier than their seniors by Range Promotion Board prior to this proposed inter-se-seniority shall not have any right to claim seniority or further promotion on the basis of their date of promotion as Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) or Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve), as the case may be. The inter-se-seniority shall be final.
v) The retired Police personnel would not be entitled to claim any notional promotion, revision of seniority with retrospective effect on par with their batchmates / juniors and any consequential pensionary benefits.”
39. On considering the said affidavit, dated 27.02.2026, we have passed the following order on 03.03.2026 :
“An affidavit has been filed today by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 27.02.2026.
2. Having gone through the same, we find that, with regard to the prospective State-Wide seniority to be adopted, for giving promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police not only to fill up the existing vacancies in these two categories, but also for all eligible people in the feeder category pursuant to such State-Wide seniority being adopted prospectively, even the remaining eligible candidates could also be accommodated by creating supernumerary posts, was the stand taken before us on the earlier occasion, which we have recorded in the earlier orders. However, the affidavit today filed by the Additional Chief Secretary does not reflect the said position and is contra to the same.
3. In paragraph 6(i) of the affidavit, it is stated that, promotions may be given effect prospectively to the existing service personnel only against the available vacancies and in future vacancies as and when arises without reverting the existing incumbents and the individual is not entitled to claim any monetary benefits retrospectively on par with their batchmates.
4. This of the stand taken by the Official respondents in the said affidavit dated 27.02.2026 does not reflect the earlier stand taken before this Court to give effect to the State-Wide Seniority prospectively by filling up the existing vacancies and also to create supernumerary vacancies for the purpose of giving promotions to all eligible candidates pursuant to the State-Wide Seniority, the incomplete affidavit or the contra affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary cannot be accepted by this Court.
5. In view of the same, time is granted for further one week to file appropriate affidavit by the Additional Chief Secretary.
6. Post these matters on 10.03.2026.”
40. Again the case came up for further hearing on 01.04.2026, where after hearing the learned Advocate General and other respective counsel for the parties, we have passed the following order :
“It is submitted by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General that, in respect of the issue which has been raised in this batch of cases, that the State-wide seniority to be provided for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve Wing of the Tamil Nadu Police Department, could be given effect to prospectively, by thus, 1000+ such affected persons could be benefited to get promotion, has already engaged the consideration of the Government, where, a Screening Committee has already been formed and before the Screening Committee, the issue was placed and discussed.
2. As the Election Code of Conduct has already come into effect, since the issue is being seized of by the Court and already at least two Judicial orders have been passed by this Court, pursuant to which, since the orders of this Court has to be complied with, necessary decision to be taken by the Screening Committee will be placed before the Election Commission of India to get their formal nod and after getting the nod from the Election Commission of India, an ultimate decision having been taken or to be taken by the Government in tune with the orders already been passed by this Court will be brought to the notice of this Court by way of filing an affidavit or statement by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, as well as the Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, so that a quietus could be given in respect of this long pending issue, hence, the learned Advocate General wants time till 15.04.2026.
3. Recording the said submission made by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, post these matters for filing the said compliance report and also to pass further orders on
15.04.2026.”
41. On 20.04.2026, when the cases were taken up for further hearing, an additional affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Home Department, dated 15.04.2026 was filed by the learned Advocate General. Considering the same we have passed the following order on 20.04.2026 :
“2. The learned Advocate General having filed the further affidavit pursuant to our earlier orders dated 24.02.2026 and 01.04.2026 by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 15.04.2026 and relied upon the same would submit that, in principle, the Government has agreed to extend the promotion prospectively for those who are affected because of the District wide Seniority having been adopted by the Department all these years to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police.
3. In this context, the following has been stated by the Home Secretary in the affidavit:
“4. With regard to the promotions given to the constabulary ranks (i.e., Grade-I Police Constable & Head Constable / Special SubInspector of Police), it is respectfully submitted that the above proposed promotion scheme will not be extended to the Constabulary ranks and the existing method of upgradation scheme alone will be continued based on the seniority within the respective District / City.
5. It is also respectfully submitted that the said promotions to the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) and Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) as proposed supra are subject to following:
(i) The above promotions may be given effect prospectively to the existing service personnel by creating the necessary supernumerary posts immediately, in addition to the arising vacancies in the current year. The individuals will not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits retrospectively on par with their batchmates / juniors and also will not be entitled to claim pay anomalies arising among their batchmates and juniors due to promotion under the new method. (ii) The retired Police personnel would not be entitled to claim any notional promotion, revision of seniority with retrospective effect on par with their batchmates / juniors and any consequential pensionary benefits.”
4. With regard to the proposal now has come out from the Government by way of this affidavit filed by the Home Secretary, the learned Senior Counsel and the other counsel appearing for the parties would submit that, insofar as the prospective promotion to be extended to the eligible persons on the basis of the State wide Seniority to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) is concerned, it must be calculated from the date of initial enlistment as Police Constable Grade-II, i.e., Constabulary Stage and not from any subsequent stage as the very promotion originally earned, i.e., first promotion from Grade-II Constable to Grade-I Constable and from Grade-I Constable to Head Constable, even in that itself there has been lot of heartburn because of the adoption of the District Wide Seniority and therefore, this aspect alone has to be rectified by the Government.
5. When this has been requested to the learned Advocate General to clarify, he states that, he would discuss with the Government and Director General of Police and would revert back with further clarificatory affidavit in this regard to extend the benefit of prospective promotion to the eligible persons to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) from the Constabulary Stage itself and accordingly such a revised affidavit would be filed, for which, the learned Advocate General seeks two days time.
6. Post the matter on 22.04.2026.”
42. Pursuant to this order, again an additional affidavit was filed giving complete clarification as to the query raised by the Court by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 21.04.2026, which was also taken into consideration and we have passed the following order on
22.04.2026 :
“Pursuant to our last order dated 20.04.2026, further clarificatory affidavit has been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department dated 21.04.2026, where, inter alia, the following has been stated:
“5. It is also respectfully submitted that the said promotions to the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) and Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) as proposed supra are subject to the following:- (i) The above promotions may be given effect prospectively to the existing service personnel by creating the necessary supernumerary posts immediately, in addition to the arising vacancies in the current year. The individuals will not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits retrospectively on par with their batchmates / juniors and also will not be entitled to claim pay anomalies arising among their batchmates and juniors due to promotion under the new method. (ii) Inter-se-seniority among the existing Head Constables / SSIs/ SIs those coming under the criteria (i) above, shall be fixed with respect to the date of enlistment as Grade-II Police Constable and with respect to their date of birth among the particular recruitment batch who were promoted / upgraded on the due date without any impediments. (iii)Grade-I Police Constables who were promoted / upgraded as Head
Constables / SSIs as the case may be belatedly due to ineligibility viz., punishment undergone / relinquishment etc., by them in the post of Grade-I Police Constable / Head Constable will not be considered along with their batchmates. They will be considered on their turn. (iv) Juniors who have got their promotion earlier than their seniors by Range Promotion Board prior to this proposed inter-se-seniority shall not have any right to claim seniority or further promotion on the basis of their date of promotion as Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) or Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) as the case may be. The inter-se-seniority shall be final. (v) The retired Police personnel would not be entitled to claim any notional promotion, revision of seniority with retrospective effect on par with their batchmates / juniors and any consequential pensionary benefits.”
2. Relying on these averments, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General made submissions stating that the Government is committed to follow what has been stated in earlier affidavits as well as the present affidavit, especially in the context of the clarification sought for by this Court in the earlier orders, the present clarification in paragraph No.5 of today’s affidavit has been stated, he contended.
3. The learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the parties wanted to make some submissions on this affidavit filed now by the Home Secretary on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu and for the said purpose and to conclude the hearing, post these matters on 27.04.2026 at 12.00 Noon.”
43. Thereafter on 27.04.2026, further arguments were advanced by the learned respective counsel appearing for the parties and the learned counsels as well as the learned Advocate General who has made explicitly clear the stand of the State Government to implement the State wise seniority for giving promotion to the police force from Grade II Police
Constable to Grade I Police Constable, Grade I Police Constable to Head
Constable, Head Constable to Sub-Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police to Inspector of Police by dispensing with the Range wise seniority system hitherto adopted by the employer.
44. In view of the said stand taken by the State Government, the issue raised in this batch of cases could be resolved amicably without affecting anybody’s service prospects.
45. It has been made very clear by the State Governments in theseaffidavits which have been quoted herein above that the State wise seniority would be adopted prospectively, that means the effect of State wise seniority would be given from 01.01.2026, thereby those who are in service as on 31.12.2025 in various cadre such as Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police in all the Ranges would be taken into account, thereby a combined State wise seniority on the basis of initial enlistment, i.e., Constabulary stage would be adopted, thereby the seniority would be rearranged and worked out and on that basis whoever has reached the position to get such promotion respectively to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police would be considered for such promotion.
46. It is further to be noted that while giving such promotion for want of vacancies, certain eligible persons could not be given promotion, where supernumerary posts would be created as a one time measure to
accommodate all those eligible persons and it is further to be noted that by virtue of these promotions being made on the basis of adoption of State wise seniority prospectively from 01.01.2026, the promotion already earned by various incumbents by virtue of the Range wise seniority would not be reverted. For instance if they already earned the promotion to the post of
Sub-Inspector of Police, he can continue to be the Sub-Inspector of Police.
Like that if he has already earned the promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, he can continue to be Inspector of Police and either for want of vacancy or for the accommodation to be made for the seniors by virtue of State wise seniority, those promotees already earned would not be disturbed or reverted.
47. However while making the inter se seniority State wide according to the eligibility of all such incumbents only on the basis of the enlistment seniority at the initial stage, i.e., from Constabulary stage, such a seniority would be rearranged, therefore any further promotion to be earned for any of these incumbents including the already promotion earned persons, such a promotion would be made only on the basis of the rearranged seniority from the stage of Constabulary, i.e., enlistment date. These are all the salient features under which the State wide seniority is to be adopted by the State
Government prospectively by giving effect to w.e.f. 01.01.2026.
48. It is further to be noted that those who have already retired fromservice by 31.12.2025 would not get any benefit either notional seniority or notional promotion or pay benefits or service benefits. It is in the other words could be said that, those who are in service as on 01.01.2026 alone would be considered for such a State wide seniority and consequential promotion even they would not be entitled to get any retrospective monetary benefits except the fixation of correct pay on the basis of their actual seniority and promotion date which would be notionally made.
49. After hearing the learned Advocate General elaborately on these aspects and after having gone through the various affidavits and additional affidavits filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu as extracted herein above, when this was specifically asked, all the learned Senior counsel and counsels appearing for the employees have agreed upon the said proposal mooted by the State Government and the decision taken by them to adopt the State wide seniority prospectively from 01.01.2026. Therefore it is a case of win-win situation, where the Government is not going to loose anything monetarily.
Like that the employees also, i.e., the members of the police force under various categories as stated supra would get their due share of the benefit of fixing their seniority as well as the consequential promotion.
50. However one set of incumbents who are very minimum in numbers, approximately 15 to 20 members who have already earned such promotion by virtue of the Range wise seniority represented by Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior counsel would contend that by virtue of the adoption of the State wide seniority as has been agreed upon by the State Government and other employees, their position who earned already the promotion because of the Range wise seniority cannot be distributed, which means, their seniority also should not be disturbed was the case projected by him.
51. In this context, he would submit that it is the wisdom of the State Government to adopt the State wide seniority prospectively, however, till date the rule since has not been amended on the basis of the rule position since Range wise seniority was adopted and promotion had been earned by some of them who are already working in the promotional position are entitled to maintain their seniority in the promoted post also, thereby while refixing the State wise seniority in the promotional position, for instance either in the Sub-Inspector of Police cadre or in the Inspector of Police cadre, they should be placed above all of them, i.e., above against all those to be now promoted by virtue of adoption of the of State wide seniority, was his contention.
52. Only we have to answer to this question alone in this lis as all other issues have been agreed upon between the parties.
53. What is the rule which is impugned herein that is rule 3(b)(ii)(b) has been extracted herein above.
54. Under the said rule, the Range Promotion Board in respect of various units were entrusted the job of preparing a qualified candidates list suitable for promotion. As per the rule as of now there are 27 Ranges, so, in each range there will be a Range Promotion Board which would prepare the list, based on which promotion would be given. But nowhere in the rule it is stated that the seniority to be adopted only on the Range wise.
55. In this context, if we look at rule 25 under the heading “Seniority”, it does not speak about the Range wise seniority. Moreover originally the Range Promotion Boards were entrusted with the job of conducting the Range Promotion Test to select the suitable candidates fit for promotion in the particular range.
56. This method of Range Promotion Test has been dispensed with by issuance of a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1055, Home (Police-III) Department, dated 01.11.2006. The relevant portion of the G.O is extracted hereunder :
“3. The Government, after careful examination of the proposal of the Director-General of Police, have decided to accept the same. They accordingly direct that the provision relating to conduct of Range Promotion Board tests, viz., written test and viva-voce examination including drill test to Head Constables / Head Constables (Armed Reserve) for promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police / SubInspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) in rule 3(d)
(iii) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service be deleted. Consequently, the Government direct that promotions to the Head
Constables / Head Constables (Armed Reserve) as Sub-Inspectors of Police / Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) be granted based on seniority and service records.
4. Necessary amendments to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service will be issued separately by the Government in the Home (Police.VI) Department.
(By order of the Governor)”
57. Therefore from 2006 onwards the Range Promotion Board Test has been dispensed with. Hence the only job of the Range Promotion Board is to consolidate the list of members available in various categories in the police force like Grade II Police Constable, Grade I Police Constable, Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police for further promotion and the promotion would be given as per the rule by the authority concerned.
58. By virtue of dispensing with the Range Promotion Test itself as adecision taken by the Government in the year 2006, the intention of the Government who is the rule making authority was very clear to dilute the role of the Range Promotion Board. Now it is only on the basis of the seniority and not on the basis of the merit the promotions are being operated. Based on the seniority and service records if the list is prepared Range wise and on that basis if promotions are given, thereby Juniors are getting promotion in some Ranges and Seniors are stagnated in some
Ranges, because of want of vacancy. This kind of artificial creation of Range wise seniority and promotion would no way helpful to the police force and also no way helpful to the employer, i.e., the Police Department of the State.
59. It is the wisdom of the State Government to adopt the State wise seniority instead of Range wise seniority hitherto being followed and this has come out as a policy decision of the Government and this has been made explicitly clear by the State Government in filing number of affidavits before this Court giving a complete clarification about the decision taken by the Government to adopt State wide seniority by giving such promotions from 01.01.20206, such a wisdom cannot be questioned by few incumbents who already earned promotions though they are Juniors, thanks to the Range wise seniority system adopted by the Government.
60. Merely because they jumped over the seniors or marched over the seniors and got promotion by adoption of the Range wise seniority, that cannot be expected to be continued.
61. The very adoption of the Range wise seniority is certainly violates the service jurisprudence, because it was one selection and recruitment made by the Recruitment Agency throughout the State based on the overall vacancies arises in the State and thereby the Police Constables are enlisted as Grade II Police Constable. While that being so, only for the
administrative exigencies or a convenience if they are distributed to various Districts or Ranges, that cannot be the criterion to fix the seniority as the seniority would be fixed only on the basis of the marks awarded to the selected candidates by the Recruitment Board or Agency which is the settled proposition of law.
62. Therefore the artificially created Range wise seniority hithertofollowed by the State Government is a complete deviation of the service jurisprudence, therefore such method cannot be considered to be a lawful method to be adopted or to be continued any further.
63. This has been fully understood by the Government, therefore they wanted to rectify the same and that is why they have come forward to dispense with or give away the Range wise seniority system hitherto followed by them and to adopt the State wise seniority system by making the implementation for those who are in service as on 01.01.2026 prospectively.
64. Therefore in our considered view, the rule 3(b)(ii)(b) has become redundant and also otiose as the same cannot be implemented any further.
65. Even in respect of candidates who earned promotion though they are juniors because of the Range wise seniority those incumbents would not be disturbed by making any reversion against them. But at the same time while fixing the State wise seniority from the Constabulary stage, the earliest enlistment date of Grade II Police Constable for each of the incumbent alone shall be taken into account, accordingly, various stages of promotion have to be earned on the basis of the State wise seniority. When that being the position even in cases where the juniors already earned such promotion because of Range wise seniority, they cannot claim permanent seniority over their seniors as the State wide seniority now being adopted by the Government is from the Constabulary stage. Therefore the said argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for some of the parties who got impleaded and earned promotion though they are juniors to the next higher category are to be rejected, accordingly, it is rejected.
66. By virtue of this adoption of the State wise seniority if benefits of promotion are given to the present incumbents, the retired people may come in future to agitate the issue claiming any notional benefits. But such kind of benefits cannot be granted to them as per the decision taken by the Government and this of their decision is further fortified by the Special Rule under the definition clause in sub rule 8 of Rule 1 under the heading “Member of the service”, it is made clear that the member of the service means a person who has been appointed to the service and who has not retired or resigned, been removed or dismissed, been substantively transferred or reduced to another service or been discharged otherwise than for want of a vacancy.
67. Therefore a person who has not retired alone would be considered as a member of the service who alone would get the benefits now being extended by virtue of adoption of State wide seniority, therefore the retirees as on 01.01.2026 would not get any such benefit. However, it is made clear that those who retired from service after 01.01.2026 certainly would be entitled to get such a benefit of State wide seniority and consequential promotion and all other service benefits which are going to be given to the present incumbents who are in service now.
68. In support of the decision that has been taken by us in accepting the proposal submitted by the State Government in adopting the State wide seniority and by declaring the Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service as redundant one, we quote some decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :
1. Minor.P.Rajendran v. State of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 1012
2. Minor A.Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (1971) 1
SCC 38
3. Radhey Shyam Singh v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 60
69. In Radhey Shyam Singh v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 60, in paragraph numbers 8, 9 and 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
“8. It is needless to emphasis that the purpose and object behind holding a recruitment examination is to select suitable and best candidates out of the lot and such an object can only be achieved by making a common select list of the successful candidates belonging to all the zones. On the other hand if zone-wise selection is made then various candidates who appeared in some of the zones and secured more marks than those who are selected from other zones would be deprived of their selection resulting into great injustice and consequent discrimination. Thus there can be said to exist no nexus between the aforesaid process of zone-wise selection and the object to be achieved, that is, the selection of the best candidates. That being so the process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the advertisement in question and reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment would lead to discriminatory results because by adopting the said process of zone-wise selection would result in the devaluation of merit at the selection examination by selecting a candidate having lesser marks over the meritorious candidate who has secured more marks and consequently the rule of equal chance for equal marks would be violated. Such a process would not only be against the principles enunciated in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but it would also result in heart burning and frustration amongst the young men of the country. The rule of equality of opportunity for every individual in the country is an inalienable part of our constitutional guarantee and that being so a candidate who secures more marks than another is definitely entitled to get preference for the job as the merit must be the test when selecting a candidate for recruitment for the posts which are advertised. In the present case admittedly the process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the advertisement in question is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it has been demonstrated from the marks list of the appellants placed before us at the Bar during the course of arguments that they had secured more marks than those secured by some of the selected candidates.
9. In the case of RajendranVs. State of Madras &Ors. (1968(2) SCR 786) this Court had struck down the districtwise distribution of seats for the medical admission as providing for unitwise allocation was held to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that it might result in candidates of inferior calibre being selected in one district and those of superior calibre not being selected in another district. Similarly in the case of PeeriakaruppanVs State of Tamil Nadu &Ors. (1971 (2) SCR 430) unit-wise allocation of seats was also held to be void and was struck down as discriminatory. Again in the case of Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra &Ors. (1986 (2) SCC 534) regionwise scheme adopted by the State Government was held to be void and struck down by this Court by holding that it would result in denial of equal opportunity and was thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The ratio of these decisions of this Court is fully attracted to the facts of the present case in which the process of selection on the zonal basis will also result in denial of equal opportunity and would be violative of Article 14 and we hold accordingly.
10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that this process of zone-wise selection is in vogue since 1975 and has stood the test of time can not be accepted for the simple reason that it was never challenged by anybody and was not subjected to judicial scrutiny at all. If on judicial scrutiny it cannot stand the test of reasonableness and constitutionality it cannot be allowed to continue and has to be struck down. But we make it clear that this judgment will have prospective application and whatever selections and appointments have so far been made in accordance with the impugned process of selection shall not be disturbed on the basis of this judgment. But in future no such selection shall be made on the zonal basis. If the Government is keen to make zone-wise selection after allocating some posts for each zone it may make such scheme or rules or adopt such process of selection which may not clash with the provisions contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India having regard to the guidelines laid down by this
Court from time to time in various pronouncements. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. The appeals and writ petitions are allowed as indicated above.”
70. Many number of decisions on this proposition can be quoted :
1. NidamartiMaheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1986) 2 SCC 534
2. Babita Prasad and Ors., v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1993 Supp (3) 268
3. Unemployed Secondary Grade Teachers Welfare Association v.
State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (6) MLJ 224
71. Therefore in view of the legal position and also on the basis of the decision now has been taken by the Government as projected by the learned Advocate General by relying upon various Affidavits filed on behalf of the
State Government by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, by considering the over all issue, we are inclined to pass the following orders in this batch of cases :
(i) That Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service has become redundant in view of the decision taken by the Government to adopt the State wise seniority.
(ii) As decided by the State Government, the State wise seniority be adopted in finalizing the inter se seniority among various police personnel in Armed Reserve Police Force in the State of Tamil Nadu Police atleast from 1993 Batch as only those people are still in service from the Constabulary stage.
(iii) The seniority inter se shall be reckoned therefore from the date of fixing initial enlistment, i.e., Grade II Police Constable enlistment of all these batches from 1993 till date and accordingly their seniority under various stages be adopted, accordingly promotion shall be made.
(iv) By virtue of this adoption of State wide seniority whoever become eligible to get promotion to various stages like Head Constable, Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police, those incumbents be identified and accordingly on the basis of their seniority in the State wide seniority list to be prepared in this regard, promotion shall immediately be granted to them.
(v) This adoption of State wise seniority according to the Government decision would be made prospectively from 01.01.2026. This benefit would be available to only those who are in service as on 01.01.2026. In other words those who retired on or before 31.12.2025 under any category whether with or without promotion, those employees / members of the police force would not get any such benefits by virtue of the State wise seniority.
(vi) By adopting the Range wise seniority asper rule 3(b)(ii)(b) if any promotion already been earned by any individual even they may be Juniors to some of them, based on the State wise seniority, shall not be disturbed or be reverted from the position they already earned.
(vii) But at the same time while finalizing the State wise seniority in each category from the Constabulary stage, the promotees already earned such promotion by virtue of Range wise seniority though are not liable to be reverted their seniority would accordingly be altered if need arises on the basis of the initial seniority from the Constabulary stage and accordingly rearranged seniority be made including those promotees who have already earned promotion by virtue of Range wise seniority.
(viii) Since such a State wise seniority and the consequential promotion being made only prospectively from 01.01.2026, none of the beneficiaries would get any backwages or monetary benefits till 31.12.2025, but at the same, their pay would be fixed according to their original seniority from the Constabulary stage and accordingly the revised pay would be paid prospectively only from 01.01.2026 and no arrears or difference of backwages can be claimed by them as they are not entitled for the same.
(ix) By virtue of the declaration being made now that the rule 3(b)(ii)(b) having become redundant by virtue of the policy decision now taken to adopt the State wise seniority prospectively from 01.01.2026, necessary Government Orders in this regard be issued by the State Government forthwith.
(x) On issuance of such a Government
Order, bringing the enabling provision in the rule, i.e., Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, all these directions be complied with by adopting the State wise seniority and the consequential promotions at various stages.
(xi) This task of preparing the State wiseseniority at various stages / positions or categories from the Constabulary stage shall be completed and the list be released within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(xii) As per the State wise seniority list to be released in this regard as indicated above, necessary promotions be extended to the eligible candidates as per their seniority which includes those who are retired or retiring from service on
01.01.2026 and thereafter.
72. With all these directions, these writ petitions and writ appeals are disposed of. However there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
73. This Court place on record the appreciation to Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General who has used his good office in resolving the issue with wide consultation with the Government at various stages and by virtue of that, the long pending issue for several decade in the Tamil Nadu Police Force especially in the Armed Reserve category are getting resolved.
(R.S.K., J.) (N.S., J.)
27.05.2026
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes tsvn
To
1. The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai – 9.
2. The Secretary to Government Home (Pol. II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
3. The Director General of Police
O/o. The Director General of Police Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4. The Additional Director General of Police
Administration,
No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Trichy Range, Trichy District – 620 020.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore – 18
7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Madurai Range, Madurai.
8. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Ramanathapuram Range, Ramanathapuram
9. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Trichy Range, Trichy District – 620 020
10. The Chairman
Range Promotion Board,
Madurai Range & Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
11. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai City, Veppery, Chennai – 7.
12. The Commissioner of Police Avadi City, Chennai.
13. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City, Chennai.
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
tsvn
Common Order in
W.P.(MD)Nos.7350, 21789 & 25923 of 2022 &
W.P.(MD)No.17294 of 2020 & W.A.(MD)Nos.1191, 1192 & 1159 to 1165 of 2020 & W.P.Nos.16349 of 2023 & W.P.Nos.14645 & 14646 of 2016 &
W.P.No.20152 of 2020 &W.P.No.21013 of 2024 and W.A.Nos.457 & 459 of 2026
and connected miscellaneous petitions
27.05.2026