ORDER 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in Rc. No. 152582/NGBI(1)/2009, dated 18.11.2011, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to confer all consequential benefits. 2.1. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner joined the uniformed service as Grade II Police Constable on 20.2.1986 and he was posted to Armed Reserve and then to Motor Transport Wing of the Chennai Police. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 25.8.1993 and thereafter, he was promoted as Temporary Head Constable on 25.1.1998. At his request, on 14.1.1999, he was transferred to Local Police and was reverted to the rank of Grade I Police Constable. 2.2. In the year 1995, the petitioner along with similarly placed persons filed O.A. No. 394 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal claiming seniority on a par with the Police Constables in Armed Reserve, which claim was dismissed by the Tribunal on 6.12.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable in the Local Police. In the meanwhile, two of the petitioner’s batchmates – N.K. Kaladaran and C.Raghupathy, challenged the the order of the Tribunal dated 6.12.2001 passed in O.A. No. 394 of 1995 before this Court in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002. This Court, by order dated 18.9.2007, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. The order of this Court dated 18.9.2007 passed in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002 was accepted by the Government and implemented by G.O. Ms. No. 1623, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 insofar as N.K. Kaladaran and C. Raghupathy are concerned. 2.3. The petitioner, who is similarly placed as that of N.K. Kaladaran and C. Raghupathy filed W.P. No. 3961 of 2009 seeking the benefits as extended to N.K. Kaladaran and C. Raghupathy. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 25.6.2009 by directing the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 1623, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 and that was considered and the Government has passed a specific government order in G.O. Ms. No. 1026, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 2.12.2009, which reads as under: “ORDER: The High Court of Madras in its order dated 18.9.2007 in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002 filed by Tvl. No. 1623, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 and that was considered and the Government has passed a specific government order in G.O. Ms. No. 1026, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 2.12.2009, which reads as under: “ORDER: The High Court of Madras in its order dated 18.9.2007 in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002 filed by Tvl. N.K. Kaladaran and C. Ragupathy, Head Constables, had given directions to consider the date of recruitment as the basis for fixing seniority and effect promotion and to include the names of the petitioners in the ‘C’ list and to give promotion to them. In the Government Order first read above, the Government have ordered to implement the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002 dt.18.9.2007 by relaxing the rule 3(a)(i) and Annexure 1 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services in favour of Tvl. N.K. Kaladaran and C. Ragupathy, Head Constables so as to enable the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City to take into consideration the date of their appointment for the purpose of reckoning their seniority in the rank of Head Constable. 2. Tvl. G. Rajendran, K. Ravi, G. Mahendran, M. Janakiraman, R. Vasudevan, R. Rajamani, A. Devabalan, R. Sivaraman, S. Megavarnan, B. Dhanasekaran, S.K. Ravichandran, A. Sekar, M. Paranthaman, K. Manivannan and T. Soundararajan, Head Constables, Chennai have filed W.P. Nos. 3125 to 3127, 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 in W.P. Nos. 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 seeking direction to promote them as as per the direction of the High Court in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002, dated 18.9.2007. 3. The High Court of Madras in its order dated 25.6.2009 in W.P. Nos. 3125 to 3127, 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 in W.P. Nos. 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 filed by Tvl. G. Rajendran, K. Ravi, G. Mahendran, M. Janakiraman, R. Vasudevan, R. Rajamani, A. Devabalan, R. Sivaraman, S. Megavarnan, B. Dhanasekaran, S.K. Ravichandran, A. Sekar, M. Paranthaman, K. Manivannan and T. Soundararajan, Head Constables, Chennai has given directions to the first respondent (i.e., the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai-9) in W.P. Nos. G. Rajendran, K. Ravi, G. Mahendran, M. Janakiraman, R. Vasudevan, R. Rajamani, A. Devabalan, R. Sivaraman, S. Megavarnan, B. Dhanasekaran, S.K. Ravichandran, A. Sekar, M. Paranthaman, K. Manivannan and T. Soundararajan, Head Constables, Chennai has given directions to the first respondent (i.e., the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai-9) in W.P. Nos. 3125 to 3127, 3961 and 3962 of 2009 to dispose of the representations of the petitioners Dt. 26.12.2008, 8.1.2009, 9.1.2009, 9.3.2009 and 30.1.2009 and the third respondent (i.e., The Commissioner of Police, Chennai-8) in W.P. Nos. 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 to dispose the representations dated 20.12.2008, 20.12.2008, 10.2.2009, 20.12.2008, 20.12.2008, 10.2.2009, 10.2.2009, 20.12.2008, 23.2.2009 and 2.2.2009 in the light of the decision rendered by the Court in W.P. No. 25043/2002 dated 18.9.2007 and G.O. Ms. No. 1623, Home (Police V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The Director General of Police has forwarded the representations of the petitioners in the above said Writ petitions and has requested the Government to extend the similar relief to the petitioners viz., Tvl. G. Rajendran, K. Ravi, G. Mahendran, M. Janakiraman, R. Vasudevan, R. Rajamani, A. Devabalan, R. Sivaraman, S. Megavarnan, B. Dhanasekaran, S.K. Ravichandran, A. Sekar, M. Paranthaman, K. Manivannan and T. Soundararajan, Head Constables, Chennai in W.P. Nos. 3125 to 3127, 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 in W.P. Nos. 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 as granted to Thiru N.K. Kalatharan and Thiru C. Ragupathy, Head Constables, Motor Transport Wing, Chennai, based on the orders passed by the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002, dated 18.9.2007. 5. The Government, after careful examination, have decided to accept the request of the Director General of Police and to implement the orders of the High Court of Madras dated 25.6.2009 in W.P. Nos. 3125 to 3127, 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 in W.P. Nos. 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009. Accordingly, the Government order that the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. Nos. 3125 to 3127, 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 in W.P. Nos. 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009. Accordingly, the Government order that the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. Nos. 3125 to 3127, 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 in W.P. Nos. 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009, dt. 25.6.2009 be implemented. The Government hereby further direct the Director General of Police to extend the similar relief to the petitioners viz., Tvl. G. Rajendran, K. Ravi, G. Mahendran, M. Janakiraman, R. Vasudevan, R. Rajamani, A. Devabalan, R. Sivaraman, S. Megavarnan, B. Dhanasekaran, S.K. Ravichandran, A. Sekar, M. Paranthaman, K. Manivannan and T. Soundararajan, Head Constables, Chennai in W.P. Nos. 3125 to 3127, 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 in W.P. Nos. 3961 and 3962, 4782 to 4786 and 4949 to 4953 of 2009 as already granted to Thiru N.K. Kalatharan and Thiru C. Ragupathy, Head Constables, Motor Transport Wing Chennai, based on the orders passed by the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002, dated 18.9.2007.” (emphasis supplied) 2.4. The petitioner and several other similarly placed persons were given the benefit of refixation of seniority and promotional benefits. The G.O. Ms. No. 1026, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 2.12.2009 was implemented and consequently the seniority of the petitioner was restored in the rank of Head Constable and he was included in the ‘C’ list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police on 11.1.2010 and was granted promotion 12.2.2010. Thereafter, his name was included in the ‘C’ list of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police on 30.6.2010 and he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 8.8.2010. 2.5. Thereafter, the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the ‘C’ list and consequent promotion was cancelled by the first respondent, which was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 21951 of 2010. This Court, by order dated 25.4.2011, set aside the proceedings of the first respondent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after issuing notice and opportunity of personal hearing. 2.6. This Court, by order dated 25.4.2011, set aside the proceedings of the first respondent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after issuing notice and opportunity of personal hearing. 2.6. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show cause notice for deletion of his name from the ‘C’ list of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police and from the ‘C’ list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police and to revert him to Local Police as Head Constable. Such show cause notice was issued on 17.6.2011. Explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 27.6.2011 and personal hearing was recorded on 10.8.2011 and the impugned order came to be passed on 18.11.2011, which is under challenge. 3. Prima facie, the order under challenge appears to be totally inappropriate, as the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. In this case, based on an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002, dated 18.9.2007, the Government passed G.O. Ms. No. 1623, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 granting benefits to N.K. Kaladaran and C. Raghupathy, who are similarly placed as that of the petitioner and thereafter, the Government thought it fit to extend the said benefit to the petitioner vide G.O. Ms. No. 1026, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 2.12.2009. A specific direction was issued to the Director General of Police to implement the order of the Government. Therefore, the first respondent will have no jurisdiction to overreach the government order and issue the show cause notice or pass any order contrary to the government order. Such power of review of the government order does not vest with the first respondent. Therefore, on the face of it, the entire proceedings culminating in the impugned order deserves to be set aside and it is set aside. The order is without jurisdiction and in defiance to the government order which directed the Director General of Police to implement the government order. 4. Admittedly, the promotion and consequential benefits granted to N.K. Kaladaran and C. Raghupathy vide G.O. Ms. No. 1623, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 have not been withdrawn till date. Similarly placed persons cannot be treated differently and the same would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings of the first respondent goes against the basic principles of service jurisprudence. No. 1623, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 have not been withdrawn till date. Similarly placed persons cannot be treated differently and the same would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings of the first respondent goes against the basic principles of service jurisprudence. In any event, the Director General of Police has no authority to usurp the function of the government. 5. A similar action taken by the respondents against one R. Vasudevan was set aside by this Court by order dated 10.11.2010 passed in W.P. No. 23649 of 2010 (R. Vasudevan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others). 6. The order of this Court dated 10.11.2010 made in W.P. No. 23649 of 2010 fortifies the above view taken in the present writ petition as well. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs. Petition allowed.