Judgment :- R. Sudhakar, J. These writ petitions have been filed by the Head Constables temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting their respective Original Applications. 2. Facts leading to filing of W.P.No.16294 to 16297, 21333, 16299, 16300 of 2004 are as follows: These batch of writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful applicants who were enlisted as Police Constables Grade-II and in the course of time, they were promoted as Head Constables and they became eligible to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It appears that in the year 1992, they had appeared before the Range Promotion Board and participated in the test as envisaged under the Special Rules relating to Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (hereinafater referred to as 'the Rules'). However, their names were not included in the 'C' list for various reasons. In the year 1998, the present batch of applicants were temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police and they were continuing to work as such. In view of their long service as temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police, the contention of the applicants before the Tribunal was that they should be regularised without being directed to undergo various tests prescribed under the Rules. Strong reliance was placed on the earlier orders of the Tribunal of the years 1992 and 1995, wherein the Head Constables who were temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police were directed to be regularised without undergoing the test as contemplated under the Rules. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the proceedings of the Director General of Police of the year 2000 whereunder the Range Promotion Board has been directed to select the candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in accordance with the Rules. It is also contended that since they were working for more than two years as Sub-Inspectors of Police, they should not be directed to undergo the tests by the Range Promotion Board. The Tribunal referred to the Rule which provides for various tests by the Range Promotion Board and in the event of passing of such tests, the successful candidates' names will be included in the 'C' list for selection. Thereafter, depending on the number of vacancies, they will be appointed. The Tribunal referred to the Rule which provides for various tests by the Range Promotion Board and in the event of passing of such tests, the successful candidates' names will be included in the 'C' list for selection. Thereafter, depending on the number of vacancies, they will be appointed. It was observed by the Tribunal that the petitioners/applicants have been temporarily appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police because of available vacancies even though they were only in the rank of Head Constables and that it was also indicated even at the time of appointment and made known to the petitioners that their appointment was purely temporary and would not confer any right in seniority or any preferential treatment in future selection. Therefore, their contention that they should be regularised as such, did not find favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the claim of the petitioners/applicants and passed the common order in O.A.Nos.4923 to 4927, 5139,5186 of 2000, 933 to 936, 938, 939, 962, 1695, 2428 of 2003 and 1143 of 2004, (batch cases), dated 21.4.2004 as follows: "8. So reading of the above said memo would also show that selection of the candidates is determined with reference to rules. In fact service candidates are given now fairly good scope inasmuch as ratio for promotion has been increased to 40% and this 40% is in respect of permanent and regular vacancies. So it is not as if that service candidates are not given promotion to the higher post. Rule relating to appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector by selection from out service candidates. The Board consists of Superintendents of Police of the Districts in the Range and Deputy Inspector General of Police is the Chairman of the Board. What these applicants want is promotion according to seniority which is not permissible as per the rules. Therefore no relief can be granted to the applicants and selection is done only in accordance with rules and selection itself is a time tested method which has been adopted for the past many years and no materials have been placed before me for giving any direction to the contra. 9. Therefore no relief can be granted to the applicants and selection is done only in accordance with rules and selection itself is a time tested method which has been adopted for the past many years and no materials have been placed before me for giving any direction to the contra. 9. All these applicants have been promoted temporarily as Sub-Inspector and they have been acting as such for a period of 2 to 4 years but even in their orders of promotion, it has been stated clearly that temporary appointment will not confer on them any preference in the matter of selection to the regular post. The request of the applicants that all the temporary Sub-Inspector must be regularised cannot be granted because it is against rules. Once merit is the basis for selection, naturally selection has to be done from among persons eligible for promotion. Various tests are prescribed and there is less chance of manipulation or giving selection according to whims and fancies of the Officers responsible for selection. Since it is time tested measure and since this is laid down by the rules, I am not inclined to concede the request of the applicants who are all temporary appointees and they cannot be regularised. 10. In the result, the applications fail and they are dismissed." Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 21.4.2004, the present writ petitions have been filed. 3. Facts leading to filing of W.P.Nos.16763, 16764, 16766 to 16768, 21330, 21331, 21332, 21334, 21335, 17003 to 17006 and 20557 of 2004, are as follows: These writ petitions have been filed by the unsuccessful applicants before the Tribunal. The petitioners/applicants were initially appointed as Police Constable Grade-II (Armed Reserve) during the years 1978 and 1981. They were promoted as Head Constables (Armed Reserve) in the year 1984. Subsequently, in the year 1998, the petitioners were temporarily promoted out of seniority as Sub-Inspectors of Police and for want of vacancies, it appears that they were reverted as Head Constables and subsequently, in the year 2001, they were again promoted temporarily as Sub-Inspectors of Police and they are working as such. Having completed two years of service as temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police, the present petitioners filed Original Applications seeking regularisation to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police. Having completed two years of service as temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police, the present petitioners filed Original Applications seeking regularisation to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police. A memorandum dated 21.2.2003 was issued by the Director General of Police to convene the Range Promotion Board for the purpose of regular selection and promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve). Such memorandum was in consonance with Rule 3(b)(i) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. The petitioners were required to undergo various tests for the purpose of selection. Such memorandum has been challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioners and passed the following order in the corresponding O.A.Nos.968 to 974, 976, 978 to 986, 993, 1001, 1004, 1133, 2393 of 2003 and 1313 of 2004 (batch cases), dated 1.6.2004: "The Memorandum is only in accordance with the rules and it is also not opposed to earlier decision made by the Tribunal. Even though one time exemption was granted by this Tribunal in a batch of cases, the Tribunal has not set aside the process of selection and has not given any direction of scrapping the drill test or written test or viva-voce test once for all. Only taking into consideration the special circumstances that were available at that time in favour of the applicants therein, direction was given. The Tribunal never directed that regular selection to the post of Sub-Inspector shall be made according to seniority. No such direction was given because it will be against the rules and the statutory rules provide only selection to the post of Sub-Inspector from among the service candidates besides the direct recruitment process. Ratio has been fixed and service candidates also cannot complain about the ratio because sufficient vacancies are reserved for service candidates. Therefore, the process of selection contemplated in the impugned memos is only in accordance with the rules and the applicants are having fair chance of selection and therefore, no direction can be given to restrict the selection to seniority. In the absence of impugned Memos being violative of any service rules, it cannot be set aside. Therefore, the process of selection contemplated in the impugned memos is only in accordance with the rules and the applicants are having fair chance of selection and therefore, no direction can be given to restrict the selection to seniority. In the absence of impugned Memos being violative of any service rules, it cannot be set aside. So, all these applicants will have their chance of promotion and the Department has assured that selection will be done according to merit and ability for which tests are prescribed and depending upon the performance of the candidates in the tests and depending upon the past performance, selection shall be made and I do not find anything illegal or improper in the Memo issued by the D.G.P. and consequential Memo issued by the Commissioners of Police and Superintendents of Police of the Districts. All these applications therefore have to fail and they are all dismissed." Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 1.6.2004, the present writ petitions have been filed. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners in all these writ petitions that since the Government has regularised large number of temporarily promoted Sub-Inspectors of Police, based on the orders of the Tribunal of the years 1992 and 1995, the present petitioners should be given the same treatment. When the Government has thought it fit to relax such conditions in respect of the earlier batch of Head Constables who have been temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police, there was no reason why there should be departure only in respect of the present writ petitioners. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Government/Department would contend that the order of the Tribunal passed in the year 1992 was accepted by the Government for the reason that no test was conducted for several years and that even in the year 1995, when the Tribunal passed the order directing the authorities to temporarily promote the Sub-Inspectors of Police by adopting screening method based on the past performance and records of service, without insisting upon the written test, viva-voce test and drill test, the Tribunal observed that in all those cases, there was no examination for several years and they were working for more than six years. The Tribunal also indicated that such order was passed in the peculiar circumstances prevailing at that point of time and should not be considered as precedent. The Tribunal also indicated that such order was passed in the peculiar circumstances prevailing at that point of time and should not be considered as precedent. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that when the Rule contemplates the Range Promotion Board to conduct test and prepare 'C' list, there is no question of by-passing such Rule. It is also contended that if the claim of the present petitioners are accepted, then, the merits of the candidates who were successful in the various tests conducted by the Range Promotion Board and whose names find place in the 'C' list will be affected. It is further contended that the Range Promotion Board had conducted the test in 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 and most of the present petitioners have participated in the examination conducted by the Range Promotion Board and some of them have failed in the test and some of them did not appear in the test and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim regularisation as a matter of right. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader would also rely upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36354 of 2002, dated 11.4.2003, in which one of us (P.K.Misra,J.) was a party, wherein, it has been clearly held that the requirement of a written test cannot be by-passed for those who aspire for the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police. It was clearly indicated that they should show necessary ability by passing the written test and thereafter, they should complete the viva-voce and drill tests. The Rule provides for written test, viva-voce test and drill test for the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police. Temporary promotion was purely ad-hoc. As regards the earlier cases, it is stated by the counsel for the Department that the last examination was conducted in the year 1991 and thereafter, only in the year 2000, such examination was conducted. However for the present, it was being conducted regularly during the years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Therefore, the earlier order of regularisation pursuant to the order of the Tribunal was on the peculiar circumstances that prevailed at that point of time when test was not being conducted regularly. Therefore, the temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police cannot claim the same relief as a matter of right contrary to the Rules. 7. Therefore, the earlier order of regularisation pursuant to the order of the Tribunal was on the peculiar circumstances that prevailed at that point of time when test was not being conducted regularly. Therefore, the temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police cannot claim the same relief as a matter of right contrary to the Rules. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the petitioners have not passed the written test, the Government should be directed to consider their case for regularisation based on their past service records, as it will be very difficult for them to undergo the various tests envisaged under the Rules after such a long period of time and particularly, in view of their age. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, dated 8.10.2004, which was passed in respect of women Constables, which reads as follows: "In accordance with the orders issued in Chief Office memo Rc.No.178383/NGB.7(1)/2004, dated 29.09.2004, 42 women Head Constables (Local) of Chennai City Police shown in the annexure including serving on OD with special Units, recruited as Women Police Constables in the year 1981 and earlier and upgraded as Women Head Constables upto the year 1996 are promoted as Women Sub-Inspectors of Police (Local) with immediate effect, by adopting "Screening Method" without Range promotion tests etc. 2. They should undergo 9 weeks institutional training and 3 months practical training for which the date will be announced later." and submitted that in the case of women Head Constables, the requirement of undergoing written test was not insisted upon and they were subjected to only screening test. In such view of the matter, it was prayed that the present petitioners should also be exempted from the tests as envisaged in the Rules and should be regularised to the promoted post by adopting screening test. 8. It is no doubt true that Court or Tribunal cannot direct the Government to make appointment or regularise the service contrary to the Rules. The Tribunal in some cases has taken the view that Rules cannot be given a go-bye and dismissed the claim of temporarily promoted Sub-Inspectors of Police. However, in some cases, relief has been granted based on the orders of the Tribunal of the years 1992 and 1995. The Tribunal in some cases has taken the view that Rules cannot be given a go-bye and dismissed the claim of temporarily promoted Sub-Inspectors of Police. However, in some cases, relief has been granted based on the orders of the Tribunal of the years 1992 and 1995. It is needless to state that in matters of promotion, if Rules prescribe a particular method, then such method has to be followed. However, the Government has ample powers to set right any anomalous situation and the Rules provide for the same. It is however the discretion of the Government/Department concerned to relax such Rules on case to case appraisal. 9. The Government taking a pragmatic view in the matter of promotion of Sub-Inspectors of Police from the promotion quota, namely Head Constables (Armed Reserve) who have put in several years of service, had on the earlier occasion, accepted the order of the Tribunal of the years 1992 and 1995 and has proceeded to regularise the temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police by adopting screening method. The past service records were taken into consideration while confirming such appointments. 10. Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules envisages that the Government can relax, for the reasons to be recorded in writing in the case of any person serving in a civil capacity or any candidate for appointment to the service, in which, the State Government are satisfied that a strict application of rule would cause hardship to the individual concerned. 11. In such view of the matter, while not interfering with the order of the Tribunal, this Court feels that the petitioners may have a case on equity for consideration of their claim as has been done on the earlier occasion when more than 600 Head Constables were regularised as Sub-Inspector of Police. The Government has power under Rule 39 of the Rules to relax the condition. Therefore, it is appropriate to observe that the Government should consider whether it's power under Rule 39 of the Rules should be exercised to extend the benefit of regularisation of temporarily promoted Sub-Inspectors of Police, the petitioners herein, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances narrated above. 12. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all connected pending WPMPs are dismissed.