Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Memorandum issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings C.No.A2/8137/2007 dated 18.4.2007 and the consequential unit promotion given to the respondents 4 to 23 in the Armed Reserve Madurai City for the panel year 2006-2007 by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings CPO.668/2007 C.No.A2/8137/2007 dated 18.4.2007 and quash the same and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to draw a fresh panel for promotion to the post of Head Constable by providing seniority to the petitioners with effect from 14.1.2003 and promote the petitioners to the post of Head Constable in the order of seniority in the fresh panel. 2. Originally, the petitioners were appointed in the Tamil Nadu Police Service as Grade II Police Constables. After considerable period of service, the petitioners were transferred to the Armed Reserve wing, Madurai. Though vacancies for the post of Grade I Police Constables were available as early as in the year 2003, no panel/list was prepared for the promotion for the panel year 2003-2004, as per Police Standing Order No.36. More so, the respondents 4 to 23 were the police personnels involved in eliminating the forest brigand Veerappan and his gang in an encounter in the year 2004. In appreciation of their services, the Government passed a G.O.Ms.No.1252 Home (Pol.VIII) Department dated 29.10.2004 and thereby, one stage of accelerated promotion was given to all the Special Task Force Personnel, who were involved in the operation of eliminating the forest brigand. In the said Government Order, in Para 5(e), it is stated that the names of the individuals who were granted accelerated promotion were to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the respective category existing on the date of their joining duty in the new post. 3. While so, though all the petitioners were to be promoted as early as during the panel year 2003-2004 or 2004-2005, they were promoted from the post of Grade II Police Constables to the post of Grade I Police Constables by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 30.11.2005. In respect of the petitioner Nos.13 and 14, they were also promoted to the post of Grade I Police Constables by virtue of the order of the third respondent dated 18.04.2007. In respect of the petitioner Nos.13 and 14, they were also promoted to the post of Grade I Police Constables by virtue of the order of the third respondent dated 18.04.2007. Had the petitioners been empaneled in the year 2003 itself for promotion to the post of Gr.I Police Constables, they would have become seniors to the candidates who were given with accelerated promotion by virtue of the Government order referred to above and because of the inaction of the third respondent, the petitioners had been made to loss their legitimate right of promotion. 4. It is specifically provided under Rule 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order that officers responsible for the preparation of promotion list would regulate the number of officers on each “C list” to ensure that on each occasion, when a list is prepared or revised, the number of names in it is not more than the total number of vacancies expected to arise in the next year in the category or rank to which officiating promotions from the list are to be made. 5. In the meanwhile, the third respondent issued a memorandum through his proceedings C.No.A2/8137/2007 dated 03.03.2007 and a list of vacancies for promotion to the post of Head Constable General line, Head Constable (MT) and Grade – I Police Constable were displayed and further invited representations in writing in case of any individual being aggrieved with the list. Accordingly, all the petitioners excepting the petitioner Nos.13 and 14 made representation to the third respondent on 05.03.2007 stating that the seniority of the petitioners in the Grade I post should be corrected and a request was also made by the petitioners to give the corrected seniority in terms of the existing Government orders and Police Standing orders. Subsequently, the third respondent had passed the impugned order in his proceedings dated 18.04.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioners regarding seniority and the request for consequential order of promotion. Hence, the petitioners have come up with this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the third respondent failed to draw a panel for promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable from the post of Grade II Police Constables, the inaction had deprived the petitioners of their right to be considered for promotion. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the third respondent failed to draw a panel for promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable from the post of Grade II Police Constables, the inaction had deprived the petitioners of their right to be considered for promotion. He further submitted that the third respondent ought to have drawn a list of eligible candidates for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 13.10.1993 and the impugned order is in violation of the circulars issued by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 09.07.2005 and 05.09.2006. In all other districts, the identically placed persons were rightly placed in the panel and accordingly, promotions were given in terms of seniority. The Government passed G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 03.10.2007 by substituting Para No.5 (e) in G.O.Ms.No.1252 dated 29.10.2004 with the following: “The seniority between the accelerated promottees and the general promottees in the promoted category shall continue to be governed by their panel position i.e. with reference to their inter-se-seniority in the lower grade. At any stage, the accelerated promotion will not give the individual accelerated consequential seniority, since the accelerated promotion is only for one stage.” 7. The learned Counsel also submitted that the prayer has become infructuous insofar as the challenge relating to the promotion order passed by the third respondent dated 18.04.2007 promoting already accelerated promotees Grade I Police Constables to the post of Head Constables, as they had been reverted back to the Grade I Police Constables. Now, the claim of the petitioners subsist with respect to seniority only and the date of their promotion to the post of Head Constables to be effective from 18.04.2007 instead of 14.04.2010. 8. The learned Counsel further submitted that due to the delay in preparation of panel, the juniors to the petitioners were given accelerated promotion. Apart from that, the next stage promotion was given to the accelerated promotees to the post of Head Constable by wrongly understanding G.O.Ms.No.1252 which had been corrected by G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 03.10.2007. Therefore, the learned Counsel claimed that the petitioners are entitled for promotion to the post of Head Constables from the date on which the accelerate promotees were promoted to the post of Head Constables (ie. on 18.04.2007). Therefore, the learned Counsel claimed that the petitioners are entitled for promotion to the post of Head Constables from the date on which the accelerate promotees were promoted to the post of Head Constables (ie. on 18.04.2007). It was also brought to the notice of this Court that G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 03.10.2007 is restricted to one stage and the said Government order had been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is just and necessary to grant seniority and attendant monetary benefits to the petitioners in the post of Head Constable with effect from 18.04.2007. 9. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, would submit through the counter affidavit of the third respondent that the seniority for promotion to the rank of HC(AR) was fixed based on the date of notification in the feeder category i.e. Gr.I.PC(AR) and promotion was ordered by the third respondent for the panel year 2006-2007 complying the guidelines issued by the second respondent in this regard. Hence, the averments made by the petitioners to draw a fresh panel providing the seniority to them with effect from 14.01.2003 and promote them to the post of HC (AR) could not be conceded, as they officiated the post of Gr.I.PC(AR) only on 30.11.2005 and 19.04.2007, whereas the respondents (4 to 23) officiated the post of Gr.I.PC with accelerated promotion on 30.10.2004 ordered by the first respondent. On 14.01.2003, the petitioners were serving only as Gr.II.PCs and they were not eligible for consideration for promotions to the post of HC(AR). It is averred in the counter affidavit that after the introduction of upgradation system by the first respondent ordering time bound promotions to the police personnel, it was noticed by the second respondent that insufficient number of Police personnel were available to man the post of HC and Gr.I.PC in Armed Reserve, whereas excess strength in the rank of HC and Gr.I.PC was available in the Taluk police. According to the learned Government Advocate, the reason is due to the transfer of Armed Reserve Men to Taluk Police on completion of requisite service of one year in the Armed Reserve based on the vacancy position both in the Armed Reserve and Taluk Police. Hence, the second respondent analysing these factors issued guidelines vide memorandum dated 09.07.2005 to fill up vacancies in Armed Reserved wing. Hence, the second respondent analysing these factors issued guidelines vide memorandum dated 09.07.2005 to fill up vacancies in Armed Reserved wing. Accordingly, their cases were considered for promotion between 8th to 10th year of service. i.e. during 2005 and they were duly promoted as Gr.II. P.Cs abiding with the norms. The petitioners enlisted on 16.04.1997 had not completed ten years of service as Gr.II.PC during the year 2003-2004. The date of issue of memorandum by the second respondent was 09.07.2005 whereas the petitioners claimed to draw a panel for promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable from the post of Grade II Police on 14.01.2003, which is improper, according to the respondents. 10. The sum and substance of the issue is that the petitioners want to draw a fresh panel for promotion to the post of Head Constable by providing seniority to the petitioners with effect from 14.01.2003 and promote the petitioners to the post of Head Constable in the order of seniority in the fresh panel. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondents herein. 12. The fact remains that as per the Police Standing Order, the respondent should have prepared the panel for the post of Grade-I Police Constables as early as 14.01.2003, which they failed to do so. Before drawing a panel, since the respondents 4 to 23 had been given promotion, the right of the petitioners to be considered for promotion has been affected. One of the reasons stated by the respondents was that the date of issue of memorandum by the second respondent was only on 09.07.2005, whereas the petitioners had claimed that the cut off date to draw a panel for promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable from the post of Grade II Police was on 14.01.2003 and therefore, the claim that the petitioners cannot question the impugned order, is untenable for the simple reason that the delay was caused by the respondents and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. Further, what the petitioners are seeking is regular promotion and not accelerated promotion. As on 14.01.2003, the question of accelerated promotion did not arise and had the panel been prepared, the names of the petitioners’ could have been considered for promotion on regular basis. Further, what the petitioners are seeking is regular promotion and not accelerated promotion. As on 14.01.2003, the question of accelerated promotion did not arise and had the panel been prepared, the names of the petitioners’ could have been considered for promotion on regular basis. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are senior to the respondents 4 to 23. 13. As per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the accelerated promotion could only be restricted to one stage. In the order in W.P.No.19173 of 2004, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: “7. It is of course true that no person has got a right to claim promotion, though his right to be considered for promotion cannot be denied. In the present case, it is not the stand of the Government that the Government has taken conscious decision not to fill up the post which fell vacant with effect from 1.8.1996 and continued to remain vacant till 30.9.1998. Only because of the non-preparation of the panel in time for the relevant years, the petitioner has been denied his normal and legitimate expectation of being promoted to the post which had in fact fallen vacant." (emphasis added.) 14. The proposition laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the above judgment, is that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and if the list was prepared as and when the vacancy arose in 2003-04, the names of the petitioners would have been considered. The period of 10 years in the same post would be applicable only if there is no vacancy and whenever vacancy arises, the candidates otherwise eligible as per seniority cannot be made to wait. Similarly, even if persons involved in the operation relating to forest brigand Veerappan case were placed above the petitioners in view of accelerated promotion, the petitioners would still be entitled to be promoted to the post of Head Constable before them as their accelerated promotion can be effective only once and immediately upon promotion the seniority of the petitioners in Grade I constable post would become revived as per the seniority in the lower grade. 15. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order has no legs to stand and accordingly, the same is set aside. 16. 15. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order has no legs to stand and accordingly, the same is set aside. 16. Due to subsequent developments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 03.10.2007, submitted that at least from 18.04.2007, the date on which the accelerated promotees were given to the post of Head Constables, their plea can be taken into consideration and promotions be granted. To that effect, the petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit. The same is placed on record. 17. Accordingly, this Court directs the third respondent to draw a fresh panel from 18.04.2007 and place the petitioners according to their seniority and pass consequential orders, giving promotions to the petitioners from the year 2007 and all monetary and other attendant benefits with effect from 18.04.2007, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 18. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.