Judgment :- This writ petition is filed initially for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Grade-II Police Constable under reserved category of Police Wards and appoint him as Grade-II Police Constable. 2. But, by M.P. No.3 of 2009, the prayer originally sought was amended. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner challenges the letter dated 12.02.2009 issued by the first respondent and seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable under reserved category of Police Wards. 3. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is one of the candidates who applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the year 2007 with reference to the Notification in Na.Ka.No.A.4747/2007. As per the said notification, under Clause V, the heirs and wards of the police personnel and the Ministerial staff of the said department are eligible for 10% of the vacancies i.e., 10% of the available vacancies has to be filled up by the heirs and wards of the Police personnel and the Ministerial staff of the said department. Further, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner had applied under the category of police ward, since his father was working as a Senior Photographer in the Police Department, however, nobody was appointed under the category of Police Wards. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the statement of marks issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. As per the statement of marks, the cut-off mark for selection under the reserved category of Police Wards is 36 and the mark secured by the petitioner is 40.5. i.e., the petitioner had secured more than the cut-off mark, but he was not selected. Hence, the petitioner had filed this writ petition with the original prayer as stated above. 4. However, after notice, the respondent department had communicated the letter dated 12.02.2009, stating that, since, the petitioner’s father was working only as a Senior Photographer, the petitioner’s claim cannot be considered under Clause-V of the notification. But, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the Government has issued an amendment in G.O. Ms. No. 2251, Home (Services G) Department, dated 010. But, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the Government has issued an amendment in G.O. Ms. No. 2251, Home (Services G) Department, dated 010. 1990, whereby, Senior Photographers, Photographers, Senior Photographic Attendants and Junior Photographic Attendants in Police Department have been brought under the General Subordinate Services Rules and as per the said amendment, the Senior Photographers, who are working in the Police Department have been brought under the General Subordinate Services Rules, the stand of the respondent department that since the petitioner’s father is a technical person, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under Clause-V, will not hold good. That apart, according to the learned Senior Counsel, all the other benefits extended to the members of the police personnel are extended to the petitioner’s father also, consequently, for the purpose of recruitment alone, the benefit, which has been extended to the Ministerial staff and other police personnel cannot be denied to the petitioner. Basing on this, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought for quashing of the letter dated 12.02.2009 and for a further direction seeking appointment to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent department has submitted that as per the letter dated 12.02.2009, which is under challenge, the post of Photographer does not fall under the category of serving or retired police personnel of the Police Department, consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit, which has been given under Clause-V of the notification, basing on which, the recruitment was made for the post of Police Constable for the year 2002. Apart from this, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, as far as the post of Photographer is concerned, it is a technical post, consequently, photographers cannot be considered as employees of the police service. Basing on this, the learned Additional Government Pleader has sought for the dismissal of the above said writ petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. Now, the issue to the decided is, whether as a ward of the Senior Photographer, who is working in the police department, the petitioner’s claim has to be considered under Clause-V of the notification in Na.Ka.No.A/4747/2007. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. Now, the issue to the decided is, whether as a ward of the Senior Photographer, who is working in the police department, the petitioner’s claim has to be considered under Clause-V of the notification in Na.Ka.No.A/4747/2007. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father is working as a Senior Photographer in the Police Department. The only objection now taken by the respondent department is that since the post of Senior Photographer is treated as technically qualified post, Photographers cannot be treated as police personnel. Now, as per Clause-V of the said notification, in addition to the police personnel, even the Ministerial staff of the said department and the wards of the ministerial staff of the said department are also entitled to the same benefit of 10% in the recruitment. The objection taken by the respondent department is that since the petitioner’s father is working as a Senior Photographer, he cannot be construed as an employee of the Police Department. 8. As far as this stand of the respondent department is concerned, I am not able to accept the same for the reason that as per the said notification, even the wards of the Ministerial staff working in the said department are entitled to the benefit of 10% in recruitment. Besides, admittedly, the petitioner’s father is working in the Police Department. 9. The words used in the notification are “wards of those who are working in the Police Subordinate Service”. When admittedly the petitioner’s father is working in the Police Department, he can be termed only as a ward of employee of the police department, though the post comes under the General Subordinate Services. Apart from this, yet another fact to be noted in this case is that no candidate has been selected under Clauses-V of the said notification and as per the notification, 10% of the vacancies is allotted to heirs and wards of those who are working in the police Department. When the petitioner had secured more than the cut-off mark and when nobody has been selected under the reserved category and when the petitioner’s father admittedly is working in the Police Department, I am of the opinion that the stand of the respondent department will not hold good. When the petitioner had secured more than the cut-off mark and when nobody has been selected under the reserved category and when the petitioner’s father admittedly is working in the Police Department, I am of the opinion that the stand of the respondent department will not hold good. Consequently, the impugned letter of the first respondent dated 12.02.2009 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under 10% quota meant for heirs and wards of the personnel of police Department and to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable, Grade-II and to issue appointment order to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.