Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent herein passed in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.162932/Appointment-1/2004 dated 11.10.2004 and the consequential order of the first respondent herein passed in his Rc.No.021241/Rect.1/05 dated 8.7.2005 and quash the same and direct the first respondent herein to appoint the petitioner as Woman Sub Inspector of Police for the year 2001-2002 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.) The petitioner was appointed as Woman Police Constable Grade-II on 28.8.2001 and was posted to the Tamil Nadu Special Police 10th Battalion, Ulundurpet. Thereafter, she was deputed to All Women Police Station, Villupuram from 30.11.2002. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board called for applications on 6.11.2002 for direct recruitment of Women Sub Inspectors of Police. As the petitioner was eligible and also fully qualified, she applied for the said post. She qualified in the written test held on 2.9.2003 and also came out successful in the viva-voce test held on 10.10.2003. As the petitioner was successful in all tests, she became eligible to be appointed as Woman Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2002 itself. Before the appointment order is issued, verification of to the antecedents is made as per Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, which reads as under:- "No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority, (a) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service; (b) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; (c) that such person does not have more than one wife living, or if such person is a woman, that she is not married to any person who has a wife living and (d) that he does not have knock knees or bow legs or flat fleet." 2. When the antecedent of the petitioner was verified, on 11.10.2004, she was informed that as an enquiry under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules was pending, she was not considered for the said post. When the antecedent of the petitioner was verified, on 11.10.2004, she was informed that as an enquiry under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules was pending, she was not considered for the said post. According to the petitioner, the said disciplinary proceedings ultimately ended in imposition of minor punishment of deferred black mark for three months period from 10.1.2005. Hence, she made a request to the respondents for posting. By another order dated 8.7.2005, her request for appointment was rejected on the ground that she had suffered punishment. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. As per Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, before making appointment, the respondents are entitled to verify the character and antecedent of the applicant to qualify for appointment. In this case, the petitioner, while she was working as Woman Police Constable Grade II, was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules on 9.9.2004 in regard to the escape of one accused viz., Sumathi from police custody. At the time when the antecedent was verified, the pendency of the enquiry was put against the petitioner. Later on, the enquiry concluded and the petitioner was only awarded a punishment of deferred black mark for a period of three months by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram dated 10.1.2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said punishment cannot be in any way considered as disqualification under Rule 13 inasmuch as the punishment was only for a minor offence and that too, only for a period of three months. In this context, paragraph 97 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders is referable, which reads as under:- "Deferred punishments.-- (1) For minor offences and in case of more serious misconduct when a man has a previous good record, the punishment may be held in abeyance for a stated period ranging from three to six months at the end of which order of punishment will be cancelled, if the officers conduct while on duty during the period or postponement has been good. If the offenders conduct is found to be unsatisfactory at any time during the period of postponement, the punishment may at once be confirmed. If the offenders conduct is found to be unsatisfactory at any time during the period of postponement, the punishment may at once be confirmed. A deferred punishment will be entered in the defaulter sheet if confirmed but not other wise. Note.--If the second offence for which a punishment or reprimand or censure is contemplated was committed during the period of preferment of the first punishment of censure or reprimand is liable for confirmation at the time of the imposition of the second punishment it will make no difference if the deferred punishment is a censure and the punishment contemplated for the second offence is only a reprimand. A deferred reprimand is like wise liable for confirmation when the proposed punishment is a deferred censure. It must however be clearly understood that the deferment of a punishment should be resorted to only if the delinquent has a good record or when the offence is minor. As reprimand has been introduced as a substantive punishment, there should ordinarily be no need to award a deferred censure for a minor offence when a reprimand would be appropriate. (2) When the punishment held in abeyance is a black mark the reprimand or a censure the period should not exceed six months. If the black mark, reprimand or censure is subsequently confirmed it will have effect from the date of the offence to which it relates. (3) No appeal shall be against a deferred punishment unless it is confirmed after the period of postponement specified in clause (1). If the punishment is confirmed an appeal may be against both the order of confirmation of deferred punishment and the order of subsequent punishment if any, imposed on the officer for his conduct which is found to be unsatisfactory at any time during the period of postponement." 5. Police Standing Order 97(1) relates to the award of deferred punishment and it states that the award of punishment would be for a period ranging from three to six months. In the event the offender's conduct is found to be unsatisfactory during the period of postponement of punishment, it may once be confirmed. A plain reading of the above Standing Order shows that if there is no confirmation of the deferred punishment, it will stand cancelled after the expiry of the period. In fact the punishment was also cancelled by subsequent order dated 28.6.2005. A plain reading of the above Standing Order shows that if there is no confirmation of the deferred punishment, it will stand cancelled after the expiry of the period. In fact the punishment was also cancelled by subsequent order dated 28.6.2005. For placing reliance on the punishment on the basis of Rule 13(b), it must be noticed that as against the imposition of deferred punishment, no appeal is provided under the Police Standing Orders. In my opinion, when the punishment is for a minor offence and it is a deferred punishment with no provision of appeal to the petitioner, it cannot be construed as a disqualification as contemplated under Rule 13(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. Of course, the said rule does not speak of any punishment, but one of bad antecedent or character. As the petitioner is also presently serving as Woman Police Constable and except the above, no other antecedent is noted, in my opinion, having been successful in all tests and is also presently allowed to continue in the post of Woman Police Constable, the respondents are not justified in invoking Rule 13(b) of the Rules to deny the benefit to the petitioner for appointment based on the selection made in the year 2002. It should be also pointed out that the incident had taken place only during the year 2004. In matters of appointment like this, though the learned Government Advocate submitted that for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police namely, law enforcing machinery, the rules should be strictly construed, in my opinion, on the facts of this case, the punishment, if it is considered to be a disqualification, it would amount to a disqualification permanently i.e., disqualifying the petitioner from applying to the post of Sub Inspector of Police at any point of time. So long as the petitioner is presently continuing in the same department, the deferred punishment, which was in force for a period of three months, cannot be put against the petitioner by placing reliance on Rule 1 3(b) of the Rules. 6. For all the above reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders denying the appointment of the petitioner as Woman Sub Inspector of Police cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. 6. For all the above reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders denying the appointment of the petitioner as Woman Sub Inspector of Police cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of the selection and provide her the posting as Sub Inspector of Police, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible as per the rules. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.10832 of 2006 is closed.