P PERUMAL Vs. N MANIVANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein, who are the respondents 4 to 6 in the writ petition, have filed this appeal as against the order dated 29.10.2010 made in writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.3547 of 2016 by a learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein by directing the Director General of Police, Chennai viz., the third respondent herein to consider the case of the first respondent in the light of the decision Bimlesh Tanwar Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2003 AIR(SC) 2000 by placing him above the respondents 4 to 6 within a period of six weeks.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary to decide this writ appeal are as follows;

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the fixation of seniority and the list thereon was published as early as on 01.09.2001. No doubt, the first respondent has secured 1306 marks out of 2050 marks, in Group I Service. Though he belongs to Most Backward Class, he was selected against General Turn. The appellants were selected in 80th, 84th and 90th MBC quota respectively. The appellants took charge and are working as Additional Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Division, Additional Director General of Police, Prohibition Wing, North Zone, Chennai and Additional Superintendent of Police, Q-Branch CID, respectively. The seniority was fixed based on the law of the land at the relevant point of time, i.e. on the date of appointment of the appellants and the first respondent herein. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants has also invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ghalaut Vs. State of Haryana, 1996 AIR(SC) 351. Therefore, no infirmity could be found on the seniority fixed based on a communal roster. Further the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the first respondent has any grievance with regard to the seniority list, he ought to have given a representation within a period of three years from the date of seniority list. But, in the instant case, the representation sent by the first respondent did not carry any date. More over, he has chosen to file the writ petition only in the year 2006. Since the challenge is made belatedly, the same is hit by latches. Therefore, on that ground alone, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.