Judgment : 1. As the common question of facts are involved in these Writ Petitions, they are taken up together, and disposed of, by this Common Order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.2727 of 2014. (i) The petitioners joined the Tamil Nadu Police Service in the year, 1988 as Grade II Police Constables. A notification, dated 01.01.1994, was issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, (in short, 'TNUSRB') Chennai, calling for applications for the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1994-1995, through direct recruitment, fixing the age limit as 30 years. As per the said notification, the in-service candidates are also entitled to apply. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners and many others, who were serving as Grade II Police constables, applied for selection to the said post. But, the applications of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that they were over aged. (ii) Hence, the petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed Original Application Nos.1368, 1398 etc., of 1994, (batch) before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the age limit prescribed in the notification dated 01.01.1994. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Applications by upholding the age limit, and observed that the direct recruitment quota for the year 1994-1995 has not been fully filled from open market candidates, and in respect of in-service candidates, those who are graduates and have completed five years of service, a specific quota may be provided in the direct recruitment vacancies and for that purpose, a special selection may be held with comparable tests and interview, as per the selection already held in 1994. (iii) As per the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1054, Home (Police III) Department, dated 13.07.1995, reserving 20% of the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota for the post of Sub Inspector of Police for Police constables and Head Constables in category-I and their equivalent ranks in the Armed Reserved and Special Police Battalion. By reason of the said Government Order, dated 13.07.1995, 80% of the vacancies shall be filled up by open market quota and 20% of the vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment of the in-service candidates. By reason of the said Government Order, dated 13.07.1995, 80% of the vacancies shall be filled up by open market quota and 20% of the vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment of the in-service candidates. It is also specified in para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, that the inter se seniority of the candidates selected against this recruitment, would be placed above those, who were selected in the open competition in that year. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1054 dated 13.07.1995, the second respondent/Director General of Police, requested the Government to amend the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules. Hence, the Government passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.1627 Home (Police III) Department, dated 24.10.1996, by which, the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'TNSPSS Rules') was amended, and proviso to Rule 24(a) was added, specifying that the seniority of the Sub-Inspectors, who were directly recruited under the in-service quota shall be fixed above the direct recruits selected under the open market quota for the same year. Corresponding amendments were also issued in respect of other rules. Pursuant to the Government Order, dated 13.07.1995, TNUSRB conducted selection in November, 1995 for both in-service candidates and also for candidates from open market. The petitioners and many others were appointed as Sub Inspector of Police by selection made under in-service candidates quota. (iv) According to the petitioners, 1100 candidates were selected from open market under the direct recruitment quota for the year 1994-1995. Consequent to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, reserving 20% of vacancies for in-service candidates, the Government added 270 posts so as to maintain the proportion of 80:20 between open market candidates and in-service candidates. Accordingly, 267 candidates were selected, including the petitioners under the in-service candidates quota. The candidates, who were selected as Sub Inspector of Police both under open market quota and in service quota, through direct recruitment, were sent for training during various periods. The first batch, consisting of 500 candidates selected from open market were sent to training early and they were issued with the appointment letters in February, 1996. Remaining 867 candidates, including 267 in-service candidates, which include the petitioners, were appointed as Sub Inspectors and deputed for training in May, 1997. All 1367 candidates completed their training successfully and were allotted to different categories, viz., Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. Remaining 867 candidates, including 267 in-service candidates, which include the petitioners, were appointed as Sub Inspectors and deputed for training in May, 1997. All 1367 candidates completed their training successfully and were allotted to different categories, viz., Taluk Police, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion. It is stated that all 1367 candidates selected by TNUSRB for the year 1994-1995 formed one lot, but, due to administrative convenience, they were bifurcated and were appointed and deputed for training in different periods. (v) Therefore, in view of the stipulation made in Para No.4 of the G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, and by reason of the amendment made in TNSPSS Rules by G.O.Ms.No.1627, dated 24.10.1996, all 267 in-service candidates were to be placed in the seniority list above 1100 candidates, selected from the open market. As the respondent-Department did not publish any seniority roll, for the selection made in the year 1996, the petitioners and other 267 candidates, who were selected under the in-service candidates quota were under the belief that they would be placed above 1100 candidates selected from open market. (vi) Whileso, the second respondent/Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, issued a memorandum, dated 08.06.2004, to all Subordinate Officers, requiring them to submit the service particulars of Sub Inspectors of Police appointed upto 31.12.1995 for preparation of 'C' list for promotion as Inspector of Police (Category-I) for 2004-2005 on 31.12.1995. Subsequently, the crucial date was for submitting the service particulars was altered from 31.12.1995 into 31.12.1996. Even thereafter, the names of 267 in-service candidates, including the petitioners were not included in 'C' list for promotion as Inspector of Police. By reason of non inclusion of the names of the petitioners and other in-service candidates in the list of eligible candidates for promotion as Inspector of Police, they have been deprived of their inter-se seniority. (vii) Therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 along with other aggrieved persons filed W.P.No.24151 of 2005, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the seniority list of Sub Inspectors of Police for consideration of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Category-I) by placing them above the Sub Inspector of Police selected and appointed from open market for the year 1994-1995 in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, and to promote the petitioners as Inspector of Police (Category-I) with all consequential service benefits. (viii) Earlier, W.P.No.2068 of 2005 was filed by some of the in-service candidates seeking the same relief. That Writ Petition No.2068 of 2005 was disposed of by this Court, by directing the Director General of Police, Chennai, to consider the claim of those petitioners to have their seniority fixed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, and G.O.Ms.No.1627, dated 24.10.1996. Following the order passed in Writ Petition No.2068 of 2005, Writ Petition No.24151 of 2005 was allowed on the same line.Despite the same, no orders have been passed in favour of 267 candidates, who were selected on the basis of 20% reservation of vacancies for the in-service candidates. Nevertheless, the Director General of Police, Chennai, issued a memorandum, dated 22.11.2013, impugned herein, calling for service particulars of the Inspector of Police (Category-I) for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) for the year 2013-2014. In the said memorandum, the Inspectors of Police, who have been promoted on regular basis upto 2004-2005, were called for. It is stated that the candidates, who were selected under the open market quota in the year 1994 were given promotion as Inspector of Police on 01.02.2005 and 05.07.2005, whereas, the petitioners were given promotion as Inspector of Police only for the year 2006 and 2007. Pursuant to the said memorandum, dated 22.11.2013, the Inspectors of Police, who have been promoted on regular basis upto 2004-2005 became eligible for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, but the petitioners, though they are eligible to be promoted for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, they were not considered due to the delay and inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2. Hence, these Writ Petitions are filed seeking to quash the memorandum, dated 22.11.2013 and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to publish the seniority list of 1367 Sub Inspector of Police, who were recruited directly for the year 1994-1995, as per the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.24151 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.2068 of 2005, and also, as per G.O.Ms.No.1054 Home (Police III) Department, dated 13.07.1995, and G.O.Ms.No.1627, Home (Police III) Department, dated 24.10.1996 and to make further promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-I, in accordance with the seniority list. 2. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows:- (i) The notification was issued on 01.01.1994, calling for 500 applications for the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1994-1995, through direct recruitment, fixing the age limit as 30 years. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners and many others, who were serving as Grade II Police constables, and outsiders applied for selection to the said post. But, the applications of the petitioners and other in-service candidates were rejected on the ground that they were over aged. Therefore, the petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed O.A. Nos.1368, 1398 etc., of 1994 batch, before Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the Government passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, reserving 20% of vacancies for in-service candidates, viz., Police constables and Head Constables, who have completed five years of service. In G.O.Ms.No.1627, dated 24.10.1996, orders were passed, amending Rule 24 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, having retrospective effect from 13.07.1995. Therefore, the Government, by letter dated 14.08.1995, issued orders to TNUSRB to recruit 270 departmental candidates under 20% reservation quota. The Government also, by their letter, dated 01.08.1995, increased the number of vacancies notified in the first G.O. from 500 to 1367. (ii) The selection process of open market candidates numbering 1100 was over by 20.01.1996 and the selection process of in-service candidates was over by 25.09.1996. Out of 1100 candidates selected from open market, 500 candidates selected as per the notification dated 01.01.1994, were sent for training on 01.03.1996 and the training for remaining 600 candidates was kept pending for want of accommodation and other facilities. The in-service candidates, numbering 267 were sent for basic training on 02.06.1997 and the remaining 600 candidates, who were selected from open market were also sent for training along with them on 02.06.1997. (iii) Thereafter, the petitioners made representations on 24.11.2004 and 25.11.2004, to fix their seniority in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1054 and G.O.Ms.No.1627. The petitioners also filed W.P.No.2068 of 2005 and this Court, directed the second respondent therein to consider the request of the petitioners and pass necessary orders in accordance with the aforesaid Government Orders and Rules. (iii) Thereafter, the petitioners made representations on 24.11.2004 and 25.11.2004, to fix their seniority in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1054 and G.O.Ms.No.1627. The petitioners also filed W.P.No.2068 of 2005 and this Court, directed the second respondent therein to consider the request of the petitioners and pass necessary orders in accordance with the aforesaid Government Orders and Rules. The respondent-Department considered the case of the petitioners, and found that selection process in respect of open market candidates completed on January 1996, whereas, the selection process in respect of 20% departmental candidates was completed on September, 1996. Out of 1100 candidates, who were selected under the open market quota, 500 candidates were appointed as Sub Inspector of Police and sent for training on 01.03.1996 and the remaining 600 open market candidates, and 267 departmental candidates were appointed as Sub Inspector of Police and sent for training on 02.06.1997. (iv) Therefore, considering para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, and G.O.Ms.No.1627, dated 24.10.1996, 267 in-service candidates, who were selected on the basis of 20% reservation quota were placed above 600 candidates, selected from open market, as they were appointed in the year 1997, and the first batch, consisting of 500 open market candidates selected during 1994 and appointed in the year 1996 were placed above 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates. The reason for placing the first batch of 500 open market candidates above 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates was that the notification to fill up 500 vacancies to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was published on 01.01.1994, and the notification to full up 270 candidates under 20% reservation quota, was published on 18.10.1995, and 500 candidates selected from open market were appointed on 01.03.1996 and 267 candidates selected under 20% reservation quota were appointed on 02.06.1997. Further, Writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.5914, 24151 and 16313 of 2005 were also filed before this Court for fixing seniority of Sub Inspector of Police for consideration of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police and they were also ordered, following the order passed in W.P.No.2068 of 2005. Further, Writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.5914, 24151 and 16313 of 2005 were also filed before this Court for fixing seniority of Sub Inspector of Police for consideration of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police and they were also ordered, following the order passed in W.P.No.2068 of 2005. (v) Therefore, considering the orders passed in W.P.No.2068 of 2005, and other Writ Petitions, as stated above, and considering the fact that 500 candidates were selected as per the notification dated 01.01.1994 for the post of Sub Inspector of Police and they were appointed on 01.03.1996, and 267 in-service candidates were appointed pursuant to the notification dated 18.10.1995 and appointed on 02.06.1997, the petitioners' request were not considered, and memorandum dated 20.01.2010 was issued, stating that, they cannot be placed above 500 open market candidates, who were selected and appointed on 01.03.1996. However, 600 open market candidates, who were selected as per the notification dated 01.01.1994, and appointed on 02.06.1997, along with 267 in-service candidates were placed below the in-service 267 candidates. Therefore, there is no merit in the Writ Petitions. 3. M.P.Nos.4, 4, 5, 5 and 9 and 9 of 2014 of W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014, were filed by the petitioners, who belonged to the first batch of 500 open market candidates, to get themselves impleaded. In the affidavits of those Petitions, it is stated as follows:- (i) It is stated that the request of the writ petitioners were considered pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.24151 of 2005, and the memorandum dated 20.01.2010, bearing Rc.No.018125/Rect.II(2)/2005, was passed, and the prayer now sought for by the writ petitioners was rejected by the second respondent, and that order has become final and binding on the writ petitioners, and without challenging the memo, dated 20.01.2010, the present Writ Petitions, challenging the memorandum dated 22.11.2013 is not maintainable. (ii) It is further stated that the petitioners, who filed impleading Petitions are necessary parties, as they would be affected if the Writ Petitions filed by the writ petitioners are allowed, hence, proposed parties have to be impleaded. It is further stated that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed by reason of the order dated 20.01.2010. On 01.01.1994, notification was issued for selection of 500 candidates for the post of Inspector of Police. It is further stated that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed by reason of the order dated 20.01.2010. On 01.01.1994, notification was issued for selection of 500 candidates for the post of Inspector of Police. Totally 20,000 candidates participated in the selection and 500 candidates were selected, as they scored high marks and various tests were conducted in respect of those 500 candidates on 20.03.1994, 30.03.1994, 05.07.1995 and 19.07.1995 respectively. Final stage of the selection was completed on 11.10.1995, and appointment orders were issued in February, 1996 in respect of those 500 candidates. Thereafter, they were sent for training on 01.03.1996. All 500 candidates were selected, pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, and 267 in-service candidates, who were selected under 20% reservation quota were not selected as per the notification dated 01.01.1994, and they were selected as per the notification, dated 18.10.1995 and got appointment only in May, 1997. Further, they were all serving as constables as on 01.06.1997, while the 500 candidates selected under the open market quota were all discharging duties as Sub Inspector of Police as on 01.06.1997. (iii) It is further stated that though Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, requires the in-service candidates to be placed above the open market candidates, and as per Rule 24(a) of TNSPSS Rules 1978, in-service candidates were to be placed above the direct recruits, the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules will not apply to the writ petitioners, as they are governed by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1953. As per Rule 24 (a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1953, in case of Sub-Inspectors (recruited direct) the seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examination in the Police Training College. As 500 candidates were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, and appointed on 01.03.1996, much earlier to the appointment of the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners cannot be placed above 500 open market candidates. As 500 candidates were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, and appointed on 01.03.1996, much earlier to the appointment of the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners cannot be placed above 500 open market candidates. (iv) It is stated that the Government, taking into account that vacancies to the post of Sub Inspectors would arise in the years 1995 and 1996, without issuing fresh notification, by its letter, dated 01.08.1995, increased the number of vacancies notified in the first G.O. from 500 to 1367, thereby, 600 open market candidates, who were not selected initially, were selected and totally 1100 candidates from open market were selected. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Government also issued another letter, dated 14.08.1995, directing TNUSRB to recruit 270 departmental candidates under 20% reservation quota, and those vacancies were notified on 18.10.1995, thereafter, selection was conducted and they were appointed on 02.06.1997 along with 600 candidates selected from open market. The selection of 500 open market candidates, pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, was over on 11.10.1995, and they were appointed and sent for training on 01.03.1996, whereas, 267 in-service candidates were appointed on 02.06.1997. Therefore, 500 open market candidates completed their one year training period and joined duty even before 267 in-service candidates and the remaining 600 open market candidates completed their training. Therefore, 267 in-service candidates cannot be placed above 500 open market candidates. Hence, the memorandum dated 20.01.2010, was issued by placing 500 open market candidates above the 267 in-service candidates, which includes the writ petitioners, who were appointed subsequently. (v) It is further stated that the Government, pursuant to Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules, placed 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates below the 500 open market candidates. As 500 open market candidates were appointed on 01.03.1996, earlier to 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates, 500 open market candidates were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police from the year 2005 onwards. Since 267 in-service candidates, including the writ petitioners and the remaining 600 open market candidates were appointed later to 500 open market candidates, I.e., on 02.06.1997, they were promoted as Inspector of Police from 2007 onwards. Since 267 in-service candidates, including the writ petitioners and the remaining 600 open market candidates were appointed later to 500 open market candidates, I.e., on 02.06.1997, they were promoted as Inspector of Police from 2007 onwards. (vi) It is further stated that 267 in-service candidates were appointed on 02.06.1997, and 500 open market candidates were appointed on 01.03.1996, the writ petitioners/in-service candidates cannot claim seniority above 500 open market candidates, who were selected and appointed earlier to them. In respect of the writ petitioners, they completed their institutional training in June 1998, and 'B' list was prepared in January 2000, and in the 'B' list, the date of appointment for the petitioners was specifically mentioned as 02.06.1997. The writ petitioners have not challenged the 'B' list issued by the Director General of Police. Therefore, without challenging 'B' list, it is not open to the writ petitioners to challenge the memo, dated 22.11.2013. As a matter of fact, the writ petitioners accepted 'B' list for the purpose of their promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, and they have not challenged the promotion given to 500 open market candidates earlier to the writ petitioners, and without challenging the promotion given to 500 open market candidates, it is not open to the writ petitioners now, to challenge the memo, dated 22.11.2013. (vii) It is further stated that, as per Rule 35 (f) of State and Subordinate Service Rules, if any person is aggrieved over the fixation of seniority in a cadre post, he must approach the authority within a period of three years from the date of declaration of the list, and if any application is made after three years, the same can be rejected. The writ petitioners have not questioned the seniority fixed in the 'B' list, and only in the year, 2005, they approached the authorities by making representation for revision of seniority in respect of first appointment, and as per the direction issued by this Court, the Director General of Police issued the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, rejecting their claim and the same has not been challenged by the writ petitioners. (viii) It is further stated that 'B' list was published in the year 1998 and therefore, the writ petitioners ought to have challenged the same in the year 2001. (viii) It is further stated that 'B' list was published in the year 1998 and therefore, the writ petitioners ought to have challenged the same in the year 2001. Further, the petitioners, who filed impleading Petitions were promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 2005, and the same has not been challenged by the writ petitioners till date. Therefore, it is not open to the writ petitioners to seek for revision of seniority after a lapse of 18 years. Therefore, the writ petitioners' case cannot be considered, and therefore, their writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and necessary parties have to be impleaded. 4. The petitioners in M.P.Nos.5 and 5 of 2014 in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014 filed vacate stay petitions, but the same was not numbered, though the copy of the affidavits were served to the petitioners in W.P.No.2727 and 3701 of 2014. 5. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed M.P.Nos.6 and 6 of 2014 respectively in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014, to amend the prayer in the said W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014, so as to include the prayer to quash the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, issued in R.C.No.018125/Rect.II (2)/2005 and filed M.P.Nos.7 and 7 of 2014, respectively in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014, to dispense with the production of original impugned order, dated 20.01.2010. The writ petitioners also filed M.P.Nos.8 and 8 of 2014 respectively in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014 to raise additional grounds and also filed common re-joinder affidavit, stating that selection process of 1100 open market candidates as well as 267 in-service candidates were completed in the year 1995 itself, and due to some administrative reasons, 500 open market candidates were sent for training initially , and thereafter, the remaining 600 open market candidates and 267 in-service candidates were sent for training in the year 1996. By reason of the fact that 500 open market candidates were sent earlier and were appointed in the year 1996 itself, they cannot claim any seniority over 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates, as all 1100 open market candidates and 267 in-service candidates were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994. Therefore, as per Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, and as per Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules, the in-service candidates should be placed above the open market candidates. Hence, the Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Therefore, as per Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, and as per Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules, the in-service candidates should be placed above the open market candidates. Hence, the Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed. 6. It is submitted by Mr. R.Thiagarajan, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.2727, 3701 and 24509 of 2014 that the writ petitioners were not aware of the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, and they came to know about the same, only when the affidavits in respect of impleading Petitions were filed by the proposed parties in the Writ Petitions. Hence, the writ petitioners filed M.P.Nos.6 and 6 of 2014 respectively to amend the prayer in W.P.No.2727 and 3701 of 2014, challenging the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010 and prayed that the said M.P. may be allowed. Therefore, it is not open to the proposed parties to contend that without challenging the memo, dated 20.01.2010, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the memo, dated 22.11.2013. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners further submitted that, as per Para No.4 of the G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, the inter se seniority of the candidates selected against the recruitment, would be placed above those, who were selected in the open competition in that year. As per G.O.Ms.No.1627, dated 24.10.1996, Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules was amended, by which also, the seniority of Sub-Inspectors, who were selected under 20% quota reserved for in-service candidates, shall be fixed above the candidates selected from the open market for the same year. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that though initially, as per notification dated 01.01.1994, 500 applications for the post of Sub Inspector of Police were invited, later, the Government issued letter, dated 14.08.1995, directing TNUSRB to recruit 270 departmental candidates under 20% reservation quota. Therefore, by virtue of notification dated 01.01.1994, 1100 open market candidates as well as 267 departmental candidates were selected. Though 500 open market candidates were given training initially, by giving appointment on 01.03.1996, that was due to want of accommodation and other facilities, and that cannot be taken advantage by those 500 open market candidates by claiming seniority over and above the candidates selected under the in-service quota. 8. In other words, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that all the persons were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994. 8. In other words, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that all the persons were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994. Therefore, as per Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, amended Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules, the in-service candidates have to be placed above 500 open market candidates. The learned Senior Counsel also emphasized the wordings in G.O.Ms.No.1054, by stating that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1054, pursuant to the direction issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1368, 1398, etc., of 1994, (batch) by which, the Government was directed to give to quota to in-service candidates by relaxing the age. Pursuant to the direction issued by T.A.T, 20% of the vacancies in the direct recruitment quota was reserved for in-service candidates, and in that context, it was stated that inter se seniority of the candidates selected against this recruitment, viz., the recruitment pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, would be placed above those selected in the open competition in that year. Both the open market candidates and in-service candidates were selected in the year 1995 itself, and 500 open market candidates were sent for training by issuing appointment order, dated 01.03.1996 for the reasons stated above. Therefore, having regard to the order of appointment or area of selection, 500 open market candidates though were appointed much earlier to the writ petitioners i.e., on 01.03.1996, having regard to the fact that they were selected in the same year, they have to be placed below the writ petitioners/in-service candidates. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners also submitted that in Writ Petition No.2068 of 2005 also, the issue was considered and accepted by this Court and direction was issued to the respondent to pass orders on the representation after holding that the petitioners in those writ petition were liable to be placed above the open market candidates. But, the respondent-Department, without appreciating the direction and observation of this Court made in W.P.No.2068 of 2005, issued the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, by placing 500 open market candidates above the writ petitioners and other in-service candidates, who were appointed subsequently. 10. But, the respondent-Department, without appreciating the direction and observation of this Court made in W.P.No.2068 of 2005, issued the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, by placing 500 open market candidates above the writ petitioners and other in-service candidates, who were appointed subsequently. 10. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that, having regard to the Government Order, dated 13.07.1995, passed in G.O.Ms.No.1054, and the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2068 of 2005, and the amended Rule 24(a) of TNSPSS Rules, the writ petitioners are entitled to be placed above 500 open market candidates. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that failure on the part of the writ petitioners in not challenging 'B' list earlier, cannot be put against the them, as the writ petitioners were not aware of the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, and they came to know about the same, only when the affidavits in respect of impleading Petitions were filed by the proposed parties. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed. 11. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions, viz., in W.P.Nos.7142, 8944, 24500, 24576, 29246 and 31862 of 2014 have also adopted the arguments putforth by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.2727, 3701 and 24509 of 2014 and submitted that the Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed. 12. Mr. P.H. Arvind Pandian, the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. A. Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are a clear abuse of process of law and having kept silent for all these years, and having accepted the promotion given to 500 open market candidates, who were initially selected and appointed in the year 1996, and having accepted their promotion and their posting above 267 in-service candidates, they cannot challenge neither the memo/order dated 22.11.2013 nor the order, dated 20.01.2010. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the writ petitioners were appointed in May, 1997 onwards, and 500 candidates, who were selected as per the notification dated 01.01.1994, were appointed in February, 1996 and they were also given promotion as Inspector of Police, much earlier to the writ petitioners and other in-service candidates, who were selected later. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the writ petitioners were appointed in May, 1997 onwards, and 500 candidates, who were selected as per the notification dated 01.01.1994, were appointed in February, 1996 and they were also given promotion as Inspector of Police, much earlier to the writ petitioners and other in-service candidates, who were selected later. Therefore, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the memo dated 22.11.2013, without challenging the earlier promotion given to those 500 candidates, who were selected under the open market quota. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that, even as per Para No.4 of the G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, and amended Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules, the writ petitioners cannot claim seniority over 500 open market candidates, who were selected in the year, 1996. 13. The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that, even assuming that all 1100 candidates, who were selected under open market quota, and 267 candidates, who were selected on the basis 20% reservation quota, were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, having regard to the fact that 500 candidates selected from open market were appointed in February, 1996, and the petitioners and others forming part of 267 in-service candidates, who were appointed only in May, 1997, they being subsequent appointees, cannot claim seniority over the earlier appointees, and it is against the basic tenets of service jurisprudence. 14. The learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that, as per Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, the inter se seniority of the candidates selected against this recruitment, would be above those, who were selected in the open competition in that year. Similarly, Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules also provides that the seniority of Sub-Inspectors directly recruited from in service shall be fixed above the direct recruits selected from the open market quota for the same year. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that selection of candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police through direct recruitment involves many process, viz., physical efficiency test, written test, viva voce etc. Initially, notification, dated 01.01.1994, was issued for selecting 500 candidates, and 20,000 candidates applied for that post, including the in-service candidates and the application of in-service candidates were rejected on the ground that there have crossed the age. Initially, notification, dated 01.01.1994, was issued for selecting 500 candidates, and 20,000 candidates applied for that post, including the in-service candidates and the application of in-service candidates were rejected on the ground that there have crossed the age. Therefore, they approached T.A.T by filing O.A.No.1368 of 1994 batch, and order was passed by the Tribunal, directing the Government to conduct special selection for candidates working in the department, who have completed 5 years of service and that order was passed on 18.01.1995. Thereafter, the notification dated 18.10.1995, was issued for selection of 270 candidates under 20% reservation quota and their selection commenced in the year, 1995 and completed in 1996, whereas, the selection in respect of 500 open market candidates commenced on 20.03.1994, and completed on 19.07.1995. Finally, medical examination was held on 11.10.1995, therefore, on 11.10.1995, selection of 500 open market candidates was over and appointment order was issued in February, 1996. 15. The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2, therefore, submitted that the selection of 500 candidates from open market cannot be treated on par with the selection of 267 in-service candidates, as 267 in-service candidates came to be selected pursuant to G.OMs.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, and they were selected in 1997. Therefore, it is clear that 500 candidates were selected in 1996 whereas, 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates were selected in 1997. Even as per Para No.4 of G.OMs.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules, 267 in-service candidates cannot be placed above the 500 direct recruits from open market, as both of them were selected in different years. The Additional Advocate General, therefore, submitted that even accepting the contention of the writ petitioners that all of them were recruited pursuant to the notification, dated 01.01.1994, 500 open market candidates were selected in the year 1996 and 267 in-service candidates and remaining 600 open market candidates were selected in 1997, hence, 267 in-service candidates cannot be placed above 500 open market candidates. 16. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that these aspects were properly appreciated by the respondent 1 and 2 while issuing the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010. It is made clear in Para No.4 of the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, that selection process of the departmental candidates was over by 25.09.1996, and open market candidates, numbering 1100, was over by 20.01.1996. 16. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that these aspects were properly appreciated by the respondent 1 and 2 while issuing the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010. It is made clear in Para No.4 of the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, that selection process of the departmental candidates was over by 25.09.1996, and open market candidates, numbering 1100, was over by 20.01.1996. 500 open market candidates were appointed on 01.03.1996, and 600 open market candidates and 267 departmental candidates were appointed on 02.06.1997. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the selection of 500 candidates selected from open market was as per the notification dated 01.01.1994, whereas, the selection of 600 candidates from open market and 267 in-service candidates was as per the notification dated 18.10.1995; the notification to fill up 500 vacancies of Inspector of Police, was published on 01.01.1994, whereas, the notification to fill up 270 vacancies earmarked for departmental candidates was published on 18.10.1995, i.e., after 1 ½ years. Therefore, in-service candidates are not entitled to be placed before those, who were appointed on 01.3.1996. Hence, the order of the respondents 1 and 2 does not call for interference. The Additional Advocate General, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petitioners are not entitled to the relief, prayed for, and the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 17. Mr. Venkataramani, the learned Senior Counsel for the proposed parties in M.P.Nos.5 and 5 of 2014 in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701/2014, Mr. Balan Haridass, the learned counsel appearing for the proposed parties in M.P.Nos.4 and 4 of 2014 in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014 and Mr. K.M. Vijayan, the learned counsels appearing for the proposed parties in M.P.Nos.9 and 9 of 2014 in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014, have also reiterated the very same averments, as putforth by the learned Additional Advocate General, and submitted that, as per the service jurisprudence, the later appointee cannot claim seniority over the earlier appointee. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were appointed after the appointment of 500 open market candidates, therefore, the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim any seniority over 500 open market candidates. Even assuming that the writ petitioners have now challenged the memo, dated 20.01.2010, by filing Petition to amend the prayer, having regard to the fact that both of them, viz. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were appointed after the appointment of 500 open market candidates, therefore, the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim any seniority over 500 open market candidates. Even assuming that the writ petitioners have now challenged the memo, dated 20.01.2010, by filing Petition to amend the prayer, having regard to the fact that both of them, viz. 500 open market candidates and 267 in-service candidates were not selected in the same year and they were appointed in different years, the in-service candidates cannot claim any seniority over the persons, who were appointed much earlier to them. The learned counsels also submitted that no right accrues to a person, merely because, he is selected and his name is included in the panel for appointment. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned counsels for the proposed parties submitted that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 18. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners, and the submissions of learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned counsels for the proposed parties, in my opinion, the proposed parties are necessary parties to be impleaded, as they would be affected, if the writ petitions are allowed. Therefore, M.P.Nos.4, 4, 5, 5, 9 and 9 of 2014 in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014 respectively, are allowed. Similarly, the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014, are also permitted to challenge the memo, dated 20.01.2010. Hence, M.P.Nos.6 and 6 of 2014 in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014 are also allowed. 19. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2, and the learned Senior Counsel and other counsels appearing for the proposed parties, the following points arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions:- (i) Whether 267 in-service candidates, including the writ petitioners were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994? (ii) Whether all 1100 direct recruits and 267 in-service candidates were selected in the same year, 1996? (iii) Whether 267 in-service candidates are entitled to have their seniority over and above the open market candidates, especially, 500 candidates, who were appointed much earlier to 267 in-service candidates, by resorting to Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054 and Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules? (iii) Whether 267 in-service candidates are entitled to have their seniority over and above the open market candidates, especially, 500 candidates, who were appointed much earlier to 267 in-service candidates, by resorting to Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054 and Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules? and (iv) Whether 267 in-service candidates, including the writ petitioners were entitled to challenge the memorandums dated 20.01.2010 and 22.11.2013, without challenging the earlier promotion given to 500 open market candidates? 20. The following facts are not in dispute:- (i) Initially, a notification, dated 01.01.1994 was issued for recruiting 500 Sub Inspectors of Police. In that process, 500 candidates from open market have secured higher marks in physical efficiency test, written test, viva voce etc., Finally, they underwent medical examination on 11.10.1995, and their selection was over on 11.10.1995. It is also an admitted fact that appointment orders were issued to them on 01.03.1996. In-service candidates also applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, but, they were not selected, as they have crossed the age prescribed in the notification dated 01.01.1994. Therefore, those in-service candidates filed various applications before T.A.T, and those applications were taken up together in batch in O.A.Nos.1368, 1398, etc., of 1994, and orders were passed on 18.10.1995, by the Tribunal, by which, the respondents 1 and 2 were directed to conduct special selection in respect of candidates working in the Department, who have completed more than 5 years of service, by giving relaxation to age and give them 20% reservation. The order passed by the Tribunal was considered by the Government, and the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, stating that 80% of the vacancies for the post of Sub Inspector of Police will be filled up by the candidates selected from open market, and 20% of the vacancies will be filled up by the in-service candidates. Thereafter, the notification for selection of 270 candidates under 20% reservation quota was issued on 18.10.1995, and the number of vacancies for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 were increased from 500 to 1367. (ii) The crucial date for filling up the eligibility criteria for 500 open market candidates was 01.01.1994, whereas, the crucial date for filling up the eligibility criteria in respect of in-service candidates was 01.07.1995. (ii) The crucial date for filling up the eligibility criteria for 500 open market candidates was 01.01.1994, whereas, the crucial date for filling up the eligibility criteria in respect of in-service candidates was 01.07.1995. Selection in respect of 500 open market candidates commenced in the year 1994 and completed in the year 1995, whereas, the selection in respect of in-service candidates and remaining 600 open market candidates commenced in the year 1995 and completed in the year 1996. The appointment orders in respect of 500 candidates were issued in February, 1996 and they were appointed with effect from 01.03.1996, whereas, 267 in-service candidates and another 600 candidates, who were selected from open market were appointed on 02.06.1997. 500 open market candidates, who were appointed as Sub Inspector of Police, on 01.03.1996 were promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 2005, whereas, the remaining 600 open market candidates and 267 in-service candidates were promoted as Inspector of Police from 2007 and no objection was raised by 267 in-service candidates for their promotion in the year 2007, which was much later to the promotion given to 500 open market candidates. 21. In these background we will have to see the effect of Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, and also Rule 24(a) of TNSPSS Rule, amended by G.O.Ms.No.1627, dated 24.10.1996. (i) Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, reads as follows:- Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board shall follow the prescribed norms and procedures adopted in the direct recruitment selection of Sub-Inspectors such as physical efficiency test, written test, viva voce etc., The inter se seniority of the candidates selected against this recruitment, would be above those selected in the open competition in that year. [emphasis supplied] (ii) Rule 24(a) of TNSPSS Rules reads as follows:- The seniority of the Sub-Inspectors of Police directly recruited from among the members of this service and the members in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service shall be fixed above the direct recruits selected from open market in the same year. 22. It is seen from Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, that inter se seniority of the candidates selected against this recruitment, would be above those, who were selected in the open competition in that year. Therefore, in respect of those candidates, who were selected pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1054, their inter se seniority shall be fixed above the candidates selected from open market. Therefore, in respect of those candidates, who were selected pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1054, their inter se seniority shall be fixed above the candidates selected from open market. Admittedly, 500 open market candidates were selected, pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, and 267 in-service candidates and the remaining 600 open market candidates were selected, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995. Moreover, 500 candidates from open market were selected in the year 1995, and appointed in the year 1996, whereas, 267 in-service candidates and remaining 600 open market candidates were selected in the year 1996 and appointed in the year 1997. Therefore, even as per Para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, 267 in-service candidates cannot be placed above 500 open market candidates, who were appointed earlier. 23. Similarly, as per Rule 24 (a) of TNSPSS Rules, 267 in-service candidates cannot be placed above 500 open market candidates, as both of them were selected in different years. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for petitioners cannot be accepted. As per the judgment reported in (1993) Supp. 3 S.C.C. 181, in re ( Prafulla Kumar Swain Vs. Prakash Chandra Misra and others) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the seniority has to be counted only from the date of appointment, and not from the date of recruitment The term "recruitment" connotes and signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction the word "appointment" means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office. In the judgment reported in (1998) 4 S.C.C. 456 in re (Jagadish Ch.Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa) the phrase “Recruitment by promotion and by direct recruitment during the same year” was interpreted, and the word “recruitment" means appointment, and the year means the calender year, and the candidate was recruited for appointment when formal appointment order was issued, and not when recruitment process was initiated. 24. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2002) 5 S.C.C. 195 in re (S.Renuka Vs. State of A.P.) that no right accrues to a person, merely because, he is selected and his name is included in the panel, and the same principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in i) (2002) 4 S.C.C. 726 in re (Vinodan T Vs. State of A.P.) that no right accrues to a person, merely because, he is selected and his name is included in the panel, and the same principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in i) (2002) 4 S.C.C. 726 in re (Vinodan T Vs. University of Calicut) and ii) (2003) 10 S.C.C. 136 in re (Ludhiana Central Co.op. Bank Ltd., Vs. Amrik Singh). In the judgment reported in (1994) 1 S.C.C. 126 in re (State of Bihar Vs. Secretariate Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the candidates are entitled to appointment only against the vacancies available upto the last date of the calender year, or year of announcement of the vacancies, and not against the vacancies available on the date of publication of the result or later. It is further held in the judgment reported in (1994) Supplementary 2 S.C.C. 541 in re (Sudhar Nigam Ltd., Vs. Shiv Narain Gupta) that exigency of vacancy does not confer any legal right to the selected candidates to be appointed, unless, the rules provides specifically to the contrary. 25. Bearing these principles in mind, we will have to see whether the claim of the writ petitioners can be sustained. 26. As stated supra, the notification dated 01.01.1994 was issued for recruitment of 500 candidates. It is also admitted that initially 500 candidates were selected from open market, and therefore, at the instance of in-service candidates, another selection was conducted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995. It is seen from the typed-set of papers filed by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014 that in-service candidates were recruited for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by conducting special examination. It is seen from the memorandum, dated 30.09.1995, issued by the Office of the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) and Chairman, TNUSRB that the in-service candidates were directed to report for medical examination. 27. It is seen from the memorandum, dated 30.09.1995, issued by the Office of the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) and Chairman, TNUSRB that the in-service candidates were directed to report for medical examination. 27. As per the communication dated 14.08.1995, sent from the Office of Director General of Police (Law and Order) and Chairman, TNUSRB,, addressed to all the Superintendent of Police, Commandants, and Commissioner of Police, Madras, Madurai and Coimbatore, that it was proposed to hold departmental test for promotion of Police Constables and Head Constables, as Sub-Inspectors of Police, by TNUSRB, and for the said promotion, the candidates must have completed 5 years of service and not exceeding forty five years on 01.07.1995. The Superintendents of Police were directed to send their list to TNUSRB, on or before 31.08.1995. Therefore, from the aforesaid communication, dated 14.08.1995, it is made clear that the in-service candidates were called for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, and for that purpose, a departmental test was conducted, whereas, as per the notification, dated 01.01.1994, applications were called for, from the outsiders for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. 28. Therefore, it is seen that the selection process of 500 open market candidates pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994 was different from the selection of in-service candidates for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, and the in-service candidates were called for departmental test for promotion, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995. As per G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, inter se seniority of the candidates selected against this recruitment would be above those selected in the open competition in that year. 29. The first condition, as per G.O.Ms.No.1054, Home (Police III) Department, dated 13.07.1995 is that, the recruitment and selection of in-service candidates and candidates from open market must be pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995, and they must have been selected in the same year. It cannot be stated that 500 candidates, who were selected from open market, were selected, as per G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995. 500 candidates from open market were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994. 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates were selected against the recruitment based on G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995. Therefore, both of them, viz., 500 open market candidates and 267 in-service candidates cannot be placed on par with each other. 500 candidates from open market were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994. 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates were selected against the recruitment based on G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995. Therefore, both of them, viz., 500 open market candidates and 267 in-service candidates cannot be placed on par with each other. Hence, the writ petitioners forming part of 267 in-service candidates cannot claim that they are entitled to be placed above 500 candidates, who were selected from open market, pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994. Even assuming that 500 open market candidates were selected and appointed in the year 1996, and 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates were selected in the year 1996, they were appointed only in the year 1997. 30. Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1993) Supp. 3 S.C.C. 181 (supra) that the seniority has to be counted only from the date of appointment and not from the date of recruitment, and also as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1998) 4 S.C.C. 456 (supra) that “recruitment" means appointment, and the year means the calender year, and the person was recruited for appointment when formal appointment was issued, and not when recruitment process was initiated. Therefore, merely because, the recruitment process was over in the year 1996, and all 1100 candidates from open market and 267 in-service candidates were selected in the year 1996, all of them cannot be treated on par with 500 open market candidates, for the reason that 500 open market candidates were appointed on 01.03.1996, whereas, other 600 open market candidates and 267 in-service candidates were appointed in the year 1997. Therefore, the date of appointment has to be taken into consideration for fixation of seniority, and not the date when the selection was conducted. 31. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2002) 5 S.C.C. 195 (supra) no right is accrued to a person, by reason of selection and inclusion of his name in the panel. Therefore, the writ petitioners and other in-service candidates, who were appointed in the year 1997, are not entitled to be placed above 500 open market candidates, who were appointed in the year 1996. Therefore, the writ petitioners and other in-service candidates, who were appointed in the year 1997, are not entitled to be placed above 500 open market candidates, who were appointed in the year 1996. Hence, I hold that 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates were not selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994; they were selected pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995; and all 1100 direct recruits from open market and 267 in-service candidates were not selected in the same year; 500 open market candidates were selected in the year 1996; 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates were selected in the year 1997, having regard to the year of appointment. Therefore, 267 in-service candidates cannot be given any priority or seniority over 500 open market candidates, who were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994. Hence points No.i to iii) are answered against the writ petitioners. 32. As rightly submitted by the learned counsels for the proposed parties, the writ petitioners have not challenged the promotion given to 500 open market candidates in the year 2005, when they were promoted as Inspector of Police. Admittedly, the list was called for from those candidates, who were to be promoted as Inspectors of Police, and 500 open market candidates, who were selected as Sub-Inspectors of Police pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994 were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 2005-2006, and 267 in-service candidates were given promotion later, and they were placed as juniors to 500 open market candidates, who were selected pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.1994, and that was not challenged by 267 in-service candidates and they continued to work as juniors to 500 open market candidates, and thereafter, the memorandum/order was passed on 20.01.2010, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.24151 of 2005 and W.P.No.2068 of 2005. In the said memorandum, respondents 1 and 2 considered all these aspects in detail and considering the fact that 500 open market candidates were appointed on 01.03.1996, whereas, other candidates were appointed later in the year 1997, they rightly rejected the representation of the in-service candidates. 33. In the said memorandum, respondents 1 and 2 considered all these aspects in detail and considering the fact that 500 open market candidates were appointed on 01.03.1996, whereas, other candidates were appointed later in the year 1997, they rightly rejected the representation of the in-service candidates. 33. Though it is stated that the order, dated 20.01.2010 was not communicated to the petitioners in W.P.No.2727 & 3701 of 2014, therefore, they have not challenged the memorandum, dated 20.01.2010, and after coming to know of the same, they have challenged the same along with prayer made in the Writ Petition in W.P.Nos.2727 and 3701 of 2014, and though amendment was allowed on that basis, the petitioners cannot claim any seniority above 500 open market candidates for the reasons stated supra. 34. According to me, the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly appreciated the position, and by order dated 20.01.2010, rejected the claim of the writ petitioners and other in-service candidates. Further, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the memorandums dated 20.01.2010 and 22.11.2013, without challenging the earlier promotion given to 500 open market candidates for the post of Inspectors of Police for the year 2005-2006. Having accepted the promotion given to those persons, and having accepted that they are juniors to those 500 open market candidates, who were promoted earlier as Inspectors of Police, without challenging that promotion, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the memorandum, dated 22.11.2013, as the same was issued calling for list of candidates on the basis of the seniority. In other words, 500 open market candidates were appointed as Inspectors of Police much earlier to 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates. 35. Hence, 500 open market candidates are senior to 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates, and therefore, the juniors, viz., 267 in-service candidates and 600 open market candidates cannot claim any seniority over and above 500 open market candidates on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995. 36. It is pertinent to say that the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly placed 600 open market candidates below 267 in-service candidates and the in-service candidates must be thankful to the respondent-Department for having placed them above 600 open market candidates, and in-service candidates cannot claim any right 500 open market candidates, by resorting to G.O.Ms.No.1054, dated 13.07.1995. Hence, point No.iv) is also answered against the writ petitioners. 37. Hence, point No.iv) is also answered against the writ petitioners. 37. In the result, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.2727 of 2014, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 in W.P.No.7142 of 2014, M.P.No.1 to 3 of 2014 in W.P.No.3701 of 2014, M.P.Nos.1 and 3 of 2014 in W.P.No.8944 of 2014, M.P.Nos.1 to 3 each in W.P.Nos.24500, 24509 and 24576 of 2014, M.P.No.1 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.29246 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.31862 of 2013, are closed.