Judgment :- 1. The petitioners prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order in G.O.M.S.No.1045/Home (Police – 1A) Department dated 20.09.2000 vide which the panel of Additional Superintendent of Police (Category 1) fit for promotion as temporary Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) for the year 2000 – 2001 was notified. 2. The grievance of the petitioners, is that the Respondent No.2 has been placed over and above the petitioners in the seniority list, even though he was absorbed in service subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, and had qualified the training for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police much later than the petitioners. 3. The petitioners were recruited directly as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category 1) through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1991 and joined the Police Training College on 15.12.1991. 4. The petitioners were thereafter promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police by including their name in the panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-1 fit for promotion as Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1998-199. The petitioners were qualified for being promoted as Superintendent of Police in the year 2000-2001. 5. The second respondent was not in the cadre of Tamil Nadu Police, as he was holding a post of Deputy Commandant, Border Security Force and was sent on deputation to Tamil Nadu cadre as Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Security Group on 02.06.1995 i.e., much after to the promotion of the petitioners as Additional Superintendent of Police. 6. The post of Deputy Commandant, Border Security Force, according to the petitioner, is not equivalent to the post in Category – I, post of the Tamil Nadu Police Force. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the services of Respondent No.2 was utilised only for special work. Thereafter on the request of Respondent No.2 he was inducted in Tamil Nadu Police cadre as Additional Superintendent of Police, Category – I, by relaxing the rules. 8. It is however not disputed that the rules were relaxed by the State Government in exercise of power vested under the rules. The condition imposed on Respondent No.2 was to undergo training for absorption, which he successfully completed. 9. 8. It is however not disputed that the rules were relaxed by the State Government in exercise of power vested under the rules. The condition imposed on Respondent No.2 was to undergo training for absorption, which he successfully completed. 9. The grievance of the petitioners, is that absorption of Respondent No.2 was bad in law and in any case Respondent No.2 could not be placed above the petitioners, as he had completed the police training course, much later than the petitioners, therefore he was to be placed junior to the petitioners. 10. On consideration, I find no force in this writ. The Respondent No.2 admittedly has more service to his credit, having been appointed as Deputy Commandant in BSF much prior to the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that the post of Deputy Commandant in BSF was not equivalent to post of Additional Superintendent of Police in Tamil Nadu Police. It is also not disputed that the State Government has the power to relax the rules. The relaxation of rule has not been challenged, nor the petitioners have challenged the absorption of Respondent No.2. The challenge is only to grant of seniority. Once a person who is on deputation is absorbed in service, he cannot be denied the benefit of service in parent department. Therefore, the impugned order fixing seniority of Respondent No.2 over the petitioners cannot be faulted. 11. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.