Judgment Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.08.2011 passed in W.P. No. 23014 of 2010 wherein and by which the impugned order passed by the Director General of Police was set aside with direction to consider the promotion of the writ petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police during the year 1994 – 1995, the State of Tamil Nadu has preferred the present Writ Appeal. 2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record. 3. Pursuant to the Notification issued by the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for selection of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1994-1995, reserving 20% quota for departmental candidates, the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil called for applications from the departmental candidates for which the first respondent herein applied. The grievance of the respondent was that though he came out successful in all the tests and the interview, he was not issued appointment order for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police when his juniors got appointment order. It is stated that since there was no reply for the representation made to the Chairman – cum – Director of General of Police, he filed Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was dismissed based on the counter filed by the authorities stating that he cannot be appointed by promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police due to currency of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years within the check period of five years. Thereafter, challenging the punishment of stoppage of increment imposed by the Superintendent of Police, the respondent filed another Original Application in O.A. No. 8080 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which was also dismissed by order dated 21.02.2003 holding that the punishment is not disproportionate and the Writ Petition filed as against the same in W.P. No. 1035 of 2004 was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court quashing the punishment imposed with a further direction to consider the case of the respondent for promotion on par with his juniors. Consequent to the said order, the respondent was promoted to the said post on 19.12.2007. The respondent claimed promotion with effect from 2006 onwards on the ground that his juniors were already promoted as Inspector of Police. Consequent to the said order, the respondent was promoted to the said post on 19.12.2007. The respondent claimed promotion with effect from 2006 onwards on the ground that his juniors were already promoted as Inspector of Police. The said claim was rejected by the Director General of Police as per order dated 06.05.2010, which was impugned in W.P. No. 23014 of 2010. 4. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, quashed the impugned order with further direction to the authorities to consider the claim of the respondent fixing the seniority on par with his juniors who have been promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police during the year 1994-1995, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Feeling aggrieved, the State has preferred the present Writ Appeal. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader representing the State, reiterating the stand taken before the learned single Judge, contended that the respondent was not selected during the year 1994 – 1995 due to his disqualification and subsequent to the same, two recruitment processes have been completed in which nearly 1750 Sub-Inspectors of Police were also recruited for the years 1997 to 2006. She further submitted that the respondent herein has been appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police only during the year 2008 and his service will commence from the date of appointment. According to her, seniority cannot be given prior to the date of appointment and as such, he cannot claim seniority on par with the candidates recruited for the year 1994 – 1995, which is before the appointment. On these grounds, she sought for interference of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent participated in the selection for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1994 – 1995 and though he came out successful in the said selection, he could not get his appointment order because of currency of punishment, which was quashed by this Court. He further submitted that by virtue of the order of this Court, the respondent was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police based on the 1994 – 1995 year selection only and not based on any subsequent year selection and, therefore, his seniority should have been fixed in the year of participating the selection. He further submitted that by virtue of the order of this Court, the respondent was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police based on the 1994 – 1995 year selection only and not based on any subsequent year selection and, therefore, his seniority should have been fixed in the year of participating the selection. As such, according to the learned counsel, the order of the learned single Judge requires no interference. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the selection process under which the respondent was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It is seen from the materials available on record that consequent to the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 1035 of 2004, the respondent was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 19.12.2007. Initially, he was denied promotion only on the ground of currency of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years within the check period of five years. Subsequently, the punishment was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1035 of 2004 in pursuant to which, the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, by order dated 21.9.2006, cancelled the said punishment. It is pertinent to note here that selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was made for the year 1994 - 1995 and the respondent came to be selected in the selection process and he was also promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It is also to be noted that he underwent training, which is also over. Though it is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the respondent herein was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police only during the year 2008 and he cannot claim seniority on par with the candidates recruited for the year 1994 – 1995, yet, he, having gone through the process of regular selection which was made for the year 1994 – 1995 and having been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by virtue of the order of this Court, cannot be denied seniority on par with his juniors. Moreover, in view of the fact that the very punishment imposed on him was cancelled by the Superintendent of Police, we are of the opinion that the said selection could be treated as the selection made for the year 1994 - 1995 itself. 8. Moreover, in view of the fact that the very punishment imposed on him was cancelled by the Superintendent of Police, we are of the opinion that the said selection could be treated as the selection made for the year 1994 - 1995 itself. 8. Further more, it is settled that once the punishment is quashed, it relates back to the date of imposition. In the case on hand, the punishment imposed on the respondent was cancelled as early as on 21.9.2006 by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. In such circumstance, the authorities should have seen that the respondent was not imposed with any punishment or undergoing any punishment and as such, he is eligible for promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted. The learned single Judge has properly analysed the facts and circumstances of the case in its proper perspective and we find no reason to interfere with the same. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned single Judge within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.