Judgment : 1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 27.12.2004 whereby the petitioner's request for fixing his seniority was rejected. 2. It is seen that the petitioner had made several representations to the authorities ventilating his grievance. It is further seen that this Court by an order dated 29.6.2004 made in W.P.No.17804 of 2004 directed the first respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner made in his representation dated 6.4.2004 in accordance with law and pass orders thereon. Consequent upon such order passed by this Court, the present impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying the various avernments contended in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 5. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not considered the petitioner's request for fixing his seniority, in accordance with law. As already stated supra, this Court has directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders, on merits. Based on the said order, the present impugned order dated 27.12.2004 came to be passed. 6. A bare perusal of the said order impugned in this writ petition would disclose that though it runs to several pages and contains 10 paragraphs, in effect, the findings of the first respondent is available only at paragraph No.10 where it is stated as follows: "10. I have carefully gone through the representation submitted by Thiru S.Kaliyamoorthy, Head Constable 956 Armed Reserve, Tiruvannamalai and also the remark of Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. I agree with the detail remarks of Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. In view of the circumstances discussed above, the request of Thiru S.Kaliyamoorthy, Head Constable 956, Armed Reserve, Tiruvannamalai and his demands cannot be conceded." 7. In all earlier paragraphs, he has only reproduced the representation of the petitioner and remarks submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District. No doubt, the petitioner's representation as well as the remarks of the concerned authority were extracted by the first respondent in the impugned order. In my considered view that itself is not sufficient to hold that the first respondent had applied his mind and passed the order. No doubt, the petitioner's representation as well as the remarks of the concerned authority were extracted by the first respondent in the impugned order. In my considered view that itself is not sufficient to hold that the first respondent had applied his mind and passed the order. Needless to say that the first respondent, being the fact finding authority, has to independently give a finding on the claim made by the petitioner and pass a speaking order. The extracted portion of the paragraph No.10 of the impugned order, would show that the first respondent has not applied his mind and on the other hand, he had simply agreed with the details remarks of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, to reject the demand of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the action of the first respondent in passing the impugned order does not satisfy the requirement of law, as it appears to be an out come of total non application of mind or an order without reasons. Therefore, without going into the other aspects of the matter on merits and the contentions of the rival parties, I only set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the first respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has got materials and supporting case laws to satisfy the authorities in justification of his claim. The petitioner is given liberty to file additional grounds before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such additional grounds, the first respondent would consider the earlier representation of the petitioner along with the additional grounds submitted by him and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for personal hearing before the first respondent while considering his representation. Nothing wrong in giving an opportunity of personal hearing also to the petitioner before disposing of his representation and therefore, the first respondent will afford reasonable opportunity including the personal hearing to the petitioner, as stated supra. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.