JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner entered the service as Grade-II Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve in Chennai City on 01.08.1984. He was promoted as Head Constable on 12.05.1987. He participated in the range promotion board conducted in the year 1990 for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. However, his name was not included in the 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector for the year 1991. 2. Thereafter, he participated in the range promotion board conducted in the year 2002. His name was included in the 'C' list for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and he was promoted as Reserve Sub-Inspector on 01.04.2003. 3. Subsequently, his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Reserve Inspector for the year 2012 and he was promoted on 19.03.2012. 4. According to the petitioner, some of the Head Constables were given temporary promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police between 1998 and 2003. Such temporary employees filed Original Applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation of their service as Sub-Inspector of Police without being directed to undergo the selection process i.e, they wanted regularisation as Sub-Inspector of Police without participating in the range promotion Board. 5. Some of the Original Applications were dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 21.04.2004. The Tribunal held that temporary Sub-Inspectors cannot seek regularization of their service as a matter of right, without participating in the selection process. 6. The Tribunal also passed an order dated 09.07.2002 allowing a a batch of Original Applications filed by temporary Sub-Inspector of Police. 7. The unsuccessful temporary Sub-Inspectors as well as the Government filed writ petitions before this Court. 8. The writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful temporary Sub-Inspectors were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on different dates. While dismissing the writ petitions, liberty was given to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules to relax the condition to participate in the selection process. 9. The writ petitions preferred by the Government against the order dated 09.07.2002 of the Administrative Tribunal in a batch of Original Applications granting direction to regularise the service of the temporary Sub-Inspectors was reversed. 9. The writ petitions preferred by the Government against the order dated 09.07.2002 of the Administrative Tribunal in a batch of Original Applications granting direction to regularise the service of the temporary Sub-Inspectors was reversed. While allowing the writ petitions of the Government in W.P.Nos.28775 to 28779 of 2004 on 21.04.2006, the Division Bench granted liberty to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 39 as in other cases. 10. G.Manavalu and 21 others were unsuccessful temporary Sub-Inspectors before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal was confirmed in the order dated 21.04.2006 by the Division Bench in W.P.No.16294 of 2004 batch. 11. One Megakumar, who was also a temporary Sub-Inspector of Police, filed O.A.No.977 of 2003 seeking for regulariation of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police. His OA was also rejected by the Tribunal on 01.06.2004. He preferred writ petition in W.P.No.16765 of 2004. Following the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2006 in W.P.No.16294 of 2004 batch, W.P.No.16765 of 2004 was also disposed of with liberty to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and the order of the Tribunal was not interfered with. 12. On 21.04.2006, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.28775 to 28779 of 2004 preferred by the Government against the order dated 09.07.2002 in a batch of OAs was allowed as stated above and the order of the Tribunal issuing direction to regularise the service of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police was reversed. 13. G.Manavalu and 21 others made representation to the Government to exercise its power under Rule 39 of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and to exempt them from participating in the selection process and also to regularise their service as Sub-Inspector of Police by granting necessary relaxation. 14. The Government passed G.O.(D) No.1423 Home (Police 3) Department, dated 30.12.2006 refusing to relax the Rules. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Government Order are extracted hereunder:- "2. The Director General of Police, in his letter second read above, has stated that if the temporary services as Sub Inspector of Police are regularised, this would be detrimental to the Head Constables who have participated and come out successful in the Promotion Boards conducted in the years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. The Director General of Police, in his letter second read above, has stated that if the temporary services as Sub Inspector of Police are regularised, this would be detrimental to the Head Constables who have participated and come out successful in the Promotion Boards conducted in the years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. Regularising the services of Temporary Sub Inspectors of Police is not justifiable now, as promotion tests are regularly held from 2000 and the Applicants are those who could not secure required gradation in the tests. 3. The Government have carefully examined the matter in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court and the report of the Director General of Police. In as much as Range Promotion Board tests have been conducted regularly during the years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, the request of the petitioner's to regularize their services in the post of Sub Inspector of Police without any Range Promotion Board tests, in relaxation of rule, is not feasible for compliance." 15. Like wise, S.Megakumar also sought relaxation of the Rule. His request was also rejected by the Government in G.O.2(D) No.263 Home (Police – 3) Department, dated 27.04.2007. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are extracted hereunder:- "5. In the letters second read above the Director General of Police, Chennai has stated that Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service envisages that the Government can relax, for the reasons to be recorded in writing in the case of any person serving in a Civil Capacity or any candidate for appointment to the service, in which the State Government are satisfied that a strict application of rule would cause hardship to the individual concerned. He has also added the following points deserve consideration:- i) There is no record to show that this writ petitioner had either appeared or came out successful in the promotion test held in 1991. As per Government instructions, the panel for Head Constables to Sub-Inspectors of Police is drawn only for the actual vacancies existing on the crucial date of the panel and no waiting list is maintained as contended by the writ petitioner. His averments in this regard are totally baseless. As per Government instructions, the panel for Head Constables to Sub-Inspectors of Police is drawn only for the actual vacancies existing on the crucial date of the panel and no waiting list is maintained as contended by the writ petitioner. His averments in this regard are totally baseless. ii) When the promotion test was held in 2003, the writ petitioner and certain others moved the High Court and obtained interim orders to desist from making the writ petitioners to appear for promotion test held at that time and also from reverting them to the lowers rank. Therefore, non participation of the writ petitioner in the promotion test held in 2003 was not the fault of the department. iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal had categorically held that promotion tests were held strictly in accordance with rule and there was no reason to interfere. iv) The orders of the High Court are to consider invoking rule 9 of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service in favour of the writ petitioner and to regularise his service as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve). iv) The writ petitioner is acting as Temporary Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) from 1998. Promotion test for drawal of "C" list of Head Constables (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) are being held regularly every year from 2000 onwards. It is the fault of the writ petitioner in not having participated in the promotion test and secure inclusion in the regular panel. There are no specific or special reasons to recommend his case for relaxation of relevant rules invoking the powers vested with the Government under Rule 39 of the Special Rules. 6. The Government have carefully examined the recommendation of the Director General of Police. Accordingly they see that no specific or special reason to relax Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services in favour of Thiru S.Megakumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, security wing, Chennai for the regulaisation of his services (Armed Reserve) with effect from 23.01.1998 with all consequential benefits without prejudice to his claim for promotion with retrospective effect from 1991 and accordingly the request of Thiru S.Megakumar Sub-Inspector of Police be rejected." 16. However, for the reasons best known to the Government, the Government issued another Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.349 Home (Police-3) Department, dated 14.03.2008, granting relaxation of Rule 3(d) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service relating to the selection made by the Range Promotion Board in favour of S.Megakumar, Temporary Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for inclusion of his name in the 'C' list of Head Constables (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 1991-1992 at the appropriate place. 17. Paragraph 6 of G.O.(Ms)No. 349 is extracted hereunder:- "6. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, 1953, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes rule 3(d) of the Special Rules for Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services relating to the selection made by the Range promotion Board in favour of Thiru S.Megakumar, Temporary Sub Inspector of Plice (Armed Reserve) presently in Security Branch CID to enable him for inclusion of his name in the "C" list of Head Constables (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 1991-1992 drawn the Chennai Police at the appropriate place. Consequently Thiru S.Megakumar be promoted notionally as Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) on par with his immediate junior with monetary benefit from the date of actual officiation." 18. No reason is given for passing the said Government Order which is in conflict with earlier Government Order in G.O.2(D)No.263 dated 27.04.2007. 19. The petitioner made a representation dated 22.05.2013 to the Government seeking to regularise his services as Sub-Inspector of Police from the year 1991 as in the case of Megakumar. It is also stated that Manavalu and others, who are similarly placed like him were also granted relaxation in G.O.Ms.No.82, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated 03.02.2011 and granted notional promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police on par with their immediate juniors as was done in the case of S.Megakumar. However, the said Government Order is not enclosed in the typed set of papers. 20. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to promote him to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by including his name in the panel of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1991 on par with similarly situated persons as stated above. 21. 20. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to promote him to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by including his name in the panel of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1991 on par with similarly situated persons as stated above. 21. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on G.O.(Ms) No.349, Home (Police -3) Department, dated 14.03.2008 that was issued in favour of S.Megakumar. He also submitted that similar order was issued in favour of G.Manavalu and others in G.O.Ms.No.82 Home (Pol.III) Department, dated 03.02.2011, though their request was also rejected earlier in G.O(D)No.1423, Home Department, dated 30.12.2006. 23. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 24. The Division Bench of this Court disposed various writ petitions on 21.04.2006 relating to the claim of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police for regularization of their service as Sub-Inspector of Police without participating in the selection process. The Division Bench upheld the view of the Tribunal that the temporary Sub-Inspector cannot claim as a matter of right regularization of their temporary service without participating in the selection process. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner cannot seek for regularization of his service from 1991 when he was not included in the 'C' list after participating in the range selection Board for the year 1990. 25. The aforesaid details also make it clear that the Government declined to relax the rules and to regularize the services of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police who lost their case before this Court in the various writ petitions as stated above. However, for reasons best known to the Government, it exercised its power of relaxation as stated above. The Government has not given reason as to why it had reversed its own G.O.2(D) No.263 dated 27.04.2007 and later passed the Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.349 dated 14.03.2008. 26. Like wise in the case of Manavalu and 21 others, the Government refused to grant relaxation in G.O.(D)No.1423 dated 30.12.2006 and it is not known, after 5 years as to why Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.82 Home (Pol.III) Department, dated 03.02.2011 granting relaxation to them. 27. In any event, the petitioner cannot compare himself with those persons. Those persons were temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police. 27. In any event, the petitioner cannot compare himself with those persons. Those persons were temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police. They wanted to continue as such and sought for regularization of their service without participating in the selection process, which was not approved by the Tribunal and this Court. Even according to the petitioner, he was not promoted as temporary Sub-Inspector of Police during 1998 and 2003. He participated in the regular selection and he became reserved Sub-Inspector of Police during 2003. Hence, he cannot compare himself with others citing the aforesaid Government Orders. 28. I am not inclined to issue direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police from 1991 while he was promoted only in the year 2003. There is no reason to give such a retrospective promotion from 1991 over others. 29. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.