(Prayer: Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule-1 r/w Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order dated 20.11.2025 made in W.P. (MD)No.22457 of 2024)
Common Order
1. These Review Applications have been filed to review the order dated 20.11.2025, passed by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.28009, 28105, 28630, 28716, 30969 of 2024 & W.P(MD).Nos.22388, 22457 of 2024, thereby setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 29.08.2024 and the combined seniority list dated 12.09.2024.
2. The Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Review Applicants dated 29.08.2024, thereby stating that orders have already been issued in G.O.Ms.No.556, Home (Police-III) Department dated 31.12.2020 in which, the Director General of Police was directed to revise the seniority of the directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police during the year 1997- 1998 as per the marks obtained by them in the Police Training College and to prepare a fresh seniority list in a combined manner by clubbing the candidates sent for training in two different batches as one batch, is perfectly valid in the eye of law and will stand the test of law. This Court issued direction on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranjith Singh and other Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu in S.L.P(c)No.5137 & 5138 of 2021 by an order dated 01.05.2025, as follows :-
“9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:-
(i) In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2024 and the combined seniority list dated 12.09.2024 are hereby set aside.
(ii) The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to revise the seniority list as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by an order dated 01.05.2025 in S.LP(C)No.5137 and 5138 of 2021.
(iii) The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to treat the direct recruitees for the year 1997-98 as two batches viz., first batch of the year 1999 and the second batch of the year 2000.
(iv) It is made clear that seniority of the candidates shall be fixed based on their marks secured in examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board.”
To review the said order, the present Review Applications have been filed by the Review Applicants.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Review Applicants submits that the direction issued in sub clause (iii) in paragraph 9 of the order is contrary to the direction issued in sub clause (ii) & (iv). Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of records and it shall be reviewed. He also raised the ground that the selection for the post of Sub Inspector of Police was made in two phases for the year 1997-98 batch and the candidates were sent for training in two batches viz., one in the year 1999 and another in the year 2000. Those candidates were selected in zone wise selection through the same examination under the very same notification on the same day but, they were sent for training in two batches due to administrative exigencies in conducting training to all the selected candidates. 50% of the selected candidates in each category in each zone were sent for training in first batch commenced from 16.04.1999 and the remaining persons were sent for training in second batch commenced from 22.05.2000. If the seniority of the directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police for the year 1997-98 is prepared batch wise, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, it would amount to contempt of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranjith Singh and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that since the candidates were selected from single examination, they shall be treated as a single unit only and they cannot be separated into two batches. Therefore, the concept of fixing seniority based on batch wise becomes infructuous.
4. Per contra, Mr.M.A.Gouthaman, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents in Rev.Appln(W).No.25 of 2026 filed counter and submitted that the review applications itself are not maintainable as there is no error apparent in the order passed by this Court. Therefore, there is no ground to review the order passed by this Court. It would amount to re-appreciation of facts and it cannot be done by way of review. If at all there is any grievance over the order passed by this Court, the applicants can file an appeal. He further submits that the first batch of Sub Inspectors of Police were sent for training on 16.04.1999 based on their meritorious marks, which means the classification of the two batches itself was based on the marks secured by the candidates in the qualifying examination. Therefore, this Court rightly issued direction to treat the direct recruitees for the year 1997-1998 as two batches viz., first batch of the year 1999 and the second batch of the year 2000. Now the Review Applicants want to have one seniority list which was actually challenged before this Court in the batch of Writ Petitions, as the first batch of highest marks scorers were sent for training on 16.04.1999 and the second batch was sent to training after a lapse of more than one year i.e., on 22.05.2000. Therefore, the Applicants cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.
4.1. He further submitted that even assuming that there should be one seniority list for both the batches, again the highest scorers of the first batch will always be above the second batch. It does not make any difference and therefore, the considered ground in the Writ Petitions and the settled law cannot be reargued and reviewed. The fulcrum of the matter is about treating two different batches based on the marks secured and the date of joining duty and upon considering all the submissions, this Court has passed a reasoned order. Even according to the Review Applicants, the candidates who secured higher marks were sent for training in the first batch and those candidates who secured lesser marks than the first batch candidates were sent for training in the second batch. Therefore, this Court rightly directed the Director General of Police to prepare seniority list treating the two batches separately and it doesn’t warrant any review once again.
5. Mr.R.John Joseph, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents in Rev.Appln(W).No.25 of 2026 filed counter and submitted that as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the seniority must be fixed solely on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination during the selection process. In fact, some of them filed Miscellaneous Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in in M.P. Diary Nos.49489 & 54019 of 2025 in S.L.P.(c) No.5137 & 5138 of 2021 seeking clarification. These petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by an order dated 26.09.2025, by observing that those applications are seeking a substantive modification of the judgment and it is not permissible in the miscellaneous application. It was further held that judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather. A disturbing trend has emerged in this Court where repeated miscellaneous or review applications are being filed after the pronouncement of a final judgment. Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged. Therefore, the present review also has been filed in the same manner to modify the order passed by this Court. There is absolutely no error apparent on the face of record and as such the order passed by this Court cannot be reviewed in any angle.
6. Mr.A.M.M.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Rev.Appl(W)No.29 of 2026 filed counter and submitted that, based on the order passed by this Court, the Government issued order in G.O.Ms.No.93 dated 06.02.2012 restoring the seniority in the 1999 batch with refixation of seniority based on the marks secured by them in the selection process. Consequently, the Director General of Police issued proceedings dated 08.10.2016 thereby fixing the seniority in the post of Sub Inspector of Police by including their names in the appropriate place in the 1999 batch. Thereafter, they were given promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. Even according to the Review Applicants, the selected Sub Inspector of Police were sent for training based on their marks secured in the selection process. Therefore, this Court rightly passed order and it doesn’t require any review.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. Mr.M.A.Gouthaman, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents in Rev.Appln(W).No.25 of 2026, relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi reported in 1980 (2) SCC 167 and the relevant portions of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
“8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment. G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta.The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O. N. Mahindroo v. Distt. Judge Delhi &Anr.Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Art. 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Art. 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility." Sow Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib.
9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to appear for the respondent, was never brought to our attention when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.”
8. Citing the said judgment, learned Counsel contended that the review application itself is not maintainable as there is no error apparent in the order passed by this Court. This argument cannot be countenanced to and the judgment cited supra shall not be squarely applicable to the case on hand for the reason that though this Court by an order dated 20.11.2025, issued the above said directions in a batch of Writ Petitions directing the Review Applicants to treat the direct recruitees for the year 1997-1998 as two batches viz., first batch of the year 1999 and the second batch of the year 2000, it is an error on the face of records as it would lead to the contempt of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjith Singh and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and hence it is liable to be reviewed as rightly pointed out by the Review Applicants.
9. Further, based on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 01.05.2025, the Government passed ordered in G.O.Ms.No.556 Home (Police-III) Department dated 31.12.2020, thereby directing the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board to recast all gradation list issued from the year 1995 in respect of direct recruitment which includes 20% in-service candidates recruited directly to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for granting seniority on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and to send the same to the Director General of Police. On receipt of the revised mark list, the Director General of Police was directed to implement the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that those who were not selected in the recruitment process in the year 1997-1998 for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, challenged the said selection process before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in a batch of Applications, on the ground that the selection was made zone-wise under the same notification. Therefore, the non-selected candidates, who secured even higher marks than the selected candidate but in different zone, are also eligible to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, the zone-wise selection is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal by an order dated 19.07.2001, held that selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police has to be made by a single method for the entire State. There is no such rule of zone-wise selection wherein each zone is considered as a separate unit and the merits of the candidates of a particular zone alone is considered. It was further observed that most of the applicants have secured higher marks than some of the persons selected from other ranges. Therefore, ends of justice will be met, if the applicants are also given appointment. Finally, those who have secured more marks than the selected candidates were allowed to participate in the selection process for the post of the Sub Inspector of Police.
11. It was challenged before this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Petition in W.P.No.17639 of 2001 etc., by an order dated 25.02.2004 held as follows :-
“73. In such circumstances, we pass the following order:
i) The Selection of both of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Men and Women) pursuant to the selection made for the vacancies notified for the year 1997-98 by resorting to zone-wise selection was invalid inasmuch as such zone-wise selection was impermissible under Special Rules governed for Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service.
ii) Having regard to the fact that such selection and appointment came to be made as early as far back as in the year 1999, at this distant point of time, applying the ratio of the Honble Supreme Court referred to in earlier paragraphs (i.e.para 61 to 64), we are not inclined to set aside the said selection.
iii) Even as regards the 53 candidates with reference to whom the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption has submitted its final report holding that their selection was tainted with mal-practices, we hold that while their appointments cannot be set aside at the present juncture, their continuation in service will depend upon the final outcome of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the final report dated 18-6-2004.
iv) The concerned 53 persons should be informed about our orders relating to them by a specific notice to be issued to them.
v) While modifying the order of the Tribunal, we hold that from amongst the applicants who are the contesting respondents both Men and Women covered by W.P.Nos.17639 to 17660 of 2001, 17822 to 17827, 17830, 17899 to 17903 and 18349 to 18356 of 2003, such of those contesting respondents who have secured the lowest cut off marks in the category, namely, OC, BC, MBC, SC and ST after the interview, should be directed to undergo medical test and after following the usual formality of police verification about their antecedents, and in the event of those contesting respondents ultimately, coming out successful, should be placed on probation and sent for police training which should be followed by their appointment and regularization as per the prescribed regulations.
vi) Such of the contesting respondents who were not called for interview, shall be called for interview and after coming out successful in the interview, if their cut off marks is more than the last cut off marks in the respective category, they shall be directed to undergo medical test and after following the usual formality of police verification about their antecedents, and in the event of those contesting respondents ultimately, coming out successful, should be placed on probation and sent for police training which should be followed by their appointment and regularization as per the prescribed regulations.
vii) The above said direction will also hold good in respect of the applicants who have filed O.A.Nos.10211 and 10324 of 1998, 1354, 4693 and 6796 of 1999, 955, 4212, 5668, 5669, 5671, 6659 and 8616 of 200 0, 2557, 6301 and 6746 of 2001, 1920, 2189, 2286, 2424, 3073, 3633, 3 745, 3751, 3999, 4194, 5001, 5142, 5518, 5546, 5687, 5688, 6412, 6429 , 6458 and 6459 of 2002 and 18, 19, 129,330, 388, 389, 796, 2130 of 2 003.
viii) The other Original Applications, namely, O.A.Nos. 2579, 2715, 3 864, 3929, 3930, 4084 of 2003 and 26, 78, 207, 1625 and 1626 of 2004 as well as W.P.Nos.32253, 32255, 32499, 33155, 33136, 22344, 22015, 2 3063 and 34275 of 2004 are dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
ix) The petitioners-State Government are directed to take steps against the concerned Officers in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, based on the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
x) We direct the petitioners to follow the above said directions and complete the above said exercise and issue appropriate orders as regards the final outcome within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
12. Thus, it is clear that the selection of both batches of Sub Inspector of Police by resorting zone-wise selection was declared as invalid. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court declined to set aside the entire selection and directed the candidates who were not called for interview to participate in the selection process. If they fulfill other requirements, it was also directed that they may be selected for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Thus, it is clear that those applicants had secured more marks than the candidates who were selected in different zone. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court declared that the zone wise selection is invalid and those candidates who secured more marks than the selected candidates can be selected in due process. Accordingly, they were selected for the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
13. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Review Applicants relied upon the judgment reported in (2015) 14 SCC 221 in the case of A.Raghu Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors., in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :-
“26. From the factual position depicted herein above, it is not possible for us to accept, that the candidates, who were deputed for training on 15.7.1991, and those deputed for training on 14.6.1992 to fulfill the deficiency, can be described as two different batches. The selection process having been joint, and in furtherance of the same notification dated 22.1.1991 (issued by the Recruitment Board), it is inevitable for us to conclude, that the candidates deputed to the two different courses of training (on 15.7.1991 and 14.6.1992) were essentially candidates belonging to a singular batch, who were selected through a common process of selection. In fact, the instant inference, insofar as the issue of inter-se seniority is concerned, is inevitable, as the dates on which the candidates were deputed for training, are inconsequential, so far as Rule 15 is concerned.”
14. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P.Saraswathy & ors Vs. R.Paranthaman & ors in W.A.No.732 of 2022 dated 08.11.2023, as follows :-
“15. We have considered all the materials and the contentions relevant to the issue under determination. The contention of the appellants that the selection being range wise and hence, it is not a single selection process, is not acceptable. The notification was for selection of 10000 Grade-II Constables and the appointment subsequent thereto was by a joint process. The division of the candidates on range/district wise for administrative exigencies will not alter the nature of the selection process or the applicability of the rule to which the selectees have subjected themselves to. Further, as per Rule 37 of the TNSPSS, which deals with the Area of Service, a member of service shall be liable to serve in any part of the State of Tamil Nadu or when so ordered by the state government in any part of the India, outside such State. Therefore, the contention that selection was range wise has no significance, more so when it comes to fixation of seniority. A candidate is sent for training after the selection. There is no rule which states that the candidates with higher marks in the initial selection will be sent for training first. The marks secured by them in the selection is not a yardstick to divide the candidates into different categories for sending to training. As per Rule 24 (d), for the purpose of fixing the seniority, the marks secured by them at the Recruitment School alone is relevant, while so, it is not for the State to create an artificial division by picking and choosing the candidates for training based on the marks scored by them in the selection. Once the candidates are part of same notification and selection, the date on which they are sent for training is irrelevant ”
In the cases on hand, the Sub Inspector of Police who were selected under the very same notification of the year 1997-1998 by zone wise and subsequently the range/zone wise selection was also set aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and they were sent for training by two batches. Therefore, the above judgments are squarely applicable to the present cases. Thus, the selection of Sub Inspector of Police under the very same notification by range/zone wise has no significance, when it comes to fixation of seniority. Further, there is no rule while states that the candidates with higher marks will be sent for training first. The mark secured by the candidates is not a yardstick to divide them into different categories for sending them to training.
16. In view of the above discussions, the direction issued by this Court by an order dated 20.11.2025, in the paragraph No.9 sub clause (iii) alone is reviewed and the following direction is issued in lieu of the same:-
(iii) the Review Applicants are directed to prepare a combined seniority list for the candidates who were recruited to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-1998 considering them as a single batch irrespective of the fact that they were sent for training as two different batches in the year 1999 and 2000.
17. Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2025, passed by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.28009 of 2024 etc., is reviewed and all the Review Applications (W) are disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |