JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in its C.No.Estt.II(2)/17856/2018 dated 04.12.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revise the dates of regular promotion of the petitioners as Sub Inspector for the year 2006-2007 with all consequential and attendant benefits.) 1. W.P.No.15586 of 2019: This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 04.12.2018 and to consequently direct the respondents to revise the dates of regular promotion of the petitioners as Sub Inspector for the year 2006-07, together with all consequential and attendant benefits. 2. W.P.No.26074 of 2019: This Writ Petition has been subsequently filed, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records on the file of the 3rd respondent dated 22.08.2019 and to quash the same and to consequently include the names of the petitioners and promote the Sub Inspectors above respondents 4 to 38 in the ''C'' list. 3. This Hon''ble Court earlier has directed both the matters to be listed together as the issues to be decided are common. 4. In the first Writ Petition, W.P.No. 15586 of 2019, the case of the petitioners are that they were all direct recruits belonging to the 1993 batch and they were appointed and selected as Constables through Uniform Service Recruitment Board. The petitioners were all allotted to Special Police Category and subsequently they got promotions as Nayak, Havildar and finally Sub-Inspectors in which rank they are working. 5. The petitioners states that their services were regularized from 01.06.2002. Though all of them had been promoted as Nayaks in March 1997 and as Havildars in March 1999, placing reliance on Rule 7(b)(iii)(f) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Sub-Ordinate Services Rules 1978, the petitioners along with similarly placed individuals gave their representations for revising their promotion dates. In November 2006, the dates of promotion of the petitioners were also advanced. Subsequently the petitioners were promoted as Sub-Inspectors on 18.11.2006. In November 2006, the dates of promotion of the petitioners were also advanced. Subsequently the petitioners were promoted as Sub-Inspectors on 18.11.2006. As some clarification was pending from the Government at that time, the ''C'' list of Havildars fit for promotion as Sub- Inspectors for the year 2006-2007 was not drawn and consequently there was a delay in drawing the subsequent panels for the year 2007-2008 and 2008- 2009 as well and therefore on account of such delay the petitioners continued serving as temporary Sub-Inspectors and after lapse of 16 long months, their services were regularized with effect from 17.04.2008. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the delay in confirmation was not because of any short coming or fault on their side, but only due to administrative lapses on the part of the respondents in not drawing the ''C'' list. Petitioners also state that in the past also the respondents have exercised powers revising seniority of similarly placed individuals and therefore the petitioners ought to have been included for regular promotion in 2006-2007 panel. Petitioners gave their representation on 29.06.2018 in this regard. As there was no action, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.17539 of 2018 and in and by order dated 12.07.2018, this Court directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on the request of the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks as per Rules. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 04.12.2018 came to be passed, rejecting the petitioners request on untenable grounds, which has necessitated the petitioners to approach this Court seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order and for consequential directions. 6. The main grievance of the petitioners is that even as per Sec.42 of the Tamil Nadu Government Services Conditions of Services Act, 2016 r/w R.35 of Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, seniority of a member of service in a post was to be reckoned only with effect from the date on which he/she joins the post in cases where appointment to the post is made by one method of recruitment i.e., direct recruitment. 7. The 1st respondent has filed a counter admitting the factual averments set out in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition with regard to the appointment as well as subsequent promotions given to the petitioners. 7. The 1st respondent has filed a counter admitting the factual averments set out in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition with regard to the appointment as well as subsequent promotions given to the petitioners. It is however contended that the temporary promotions was given only to fill up vacancies since regular promotions could not be given due to administrative reasons and that in terms of Rs.7(b)(iii)(c) r/w 7(iii) (a) (i) of the TNSPSS Rules, the petitioners cannot make any preferential claim on account of a temporary promotion. It is also stated that the same was also made clear in the appointment order of the petitioners as well. The 1st respondent has also stated that vide G.O.Ms.No.302, home (Pol.9) Department dated 27.02.2008, the Government scrapped the test for selection to the post of S.Is and ''C'' list for the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were drawn up on 01.04.2008 and 08.04.2008 respectively according to the seniority. The names of the petitioners were included in the ''C'' list for the year 2007-2008 and such decision is as per the procedure and no infirmity or illegality can be alleged by the petitioners. In so far as the reliance placed on Sec.42 of the Tamil Nadu Government Services (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and R.35 of Tamil Nadu State and Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, the reply of the 1st respondent is that the Rules are applicable only to promotions given in regular vacancies and since the petitioners were promoted as only on temporary basis to ensure smooth administration, the petitioners cannot claim rights available U/s. 42 and R.35 as afore mentioned. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.740 of 2017, where a Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner there in was ineligible for promotion for the year 2006-2007 as he was only temporarily promoted and as against the quota fixed for direct promotees. The respondents, therefore sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 8. Pending the above Writ Petition, some of the petitioners in the earlier Writ Petition filed W.P.No.20074 of 2019. The case put forth by them in the said Writ Petition was that pending the earlier Writ Petition already filed by them, the 3rd respondent by order dated 22.08.2009, prepared and circulated a ''C'' list of Sub-Inspectors fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 2009-2010. The case put forth by them in the said Writ Petition was that pending the earlier Writ Petition already filed by them, the 3rd respondent by order dated 22.08.2009, prepared and circulated a ''C'' list of Sub-Inspectors fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 2009-2010. The list did not include the petitioners'' names. However, respondents 4 to 38 who were all directly recruited Sub-Inspectors who joined service only on 18.01.2008, were considered for promotion, even though the petitioners were all promotee Sub-Inspectors even as early as on 18.11.2006. More or less on the same set of grounds of challenge, the petitioners have challenged the subsequent order of the 3rd respondent in the present Writ Petition. 9. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter reiterating the nature of appointment of the petitioners has been temporary only and sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 10. The respondents 5,7,12 and 24 who are direct recruits to the post of Sub-Inspectors have filed their counter stating that the promotees were temporarily appointed against the quota assigned for direct recruits and therefore the petitioners cannot be considered retrospectively from the date of their temporary promotion. The petitioners were ineligible to be appointed for the panel year 2006-2007 and they cannot seek regularisation of their services as Sub-Inspectors retrospectively from the date of their temporary appointment. Moreover, when it was made clear to the petitioners even in their promotion order dated 18.11.2006 that they cannot be considered for regular promotion, it is not open to the petitioners to now claim preferential rights and seek relief from this Court. Further, the petitioners have approached the Court belatedly and only after a lapse of 17 years the first Writ Petition came to be filed that too in respect of list for the panel year 2006-2007. It is also contended that the petitioners being promotees cannot claim parity with the direct recruits hence the directly recruited Sub- Inspectors arrayed as private respondents also prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 11. Heard Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior counsel for Mr.B.Thirumalai, appearing for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitins amd Mr.V.Arun, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.P.Gurunathan, AGP for respondents 1 and 2 in both cases and for R3 in W.P.No.26074 of 2019. 11. Heard Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned Senior counsel for Mr.B.Thirumalai, appearing for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitins amd Mr.V.Arun, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.P.Gurunathan, AGP for respondents 1 and 2 in both cases and for R3 in W.P.No.26074 of 2019. Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the respondents 6,9,10,11,15 and 17 in W.P.No.26074 of 2019 and for respondents 4 to 7 in W.P.No.15586 of 2019 and Mr.K.M.Vignesh for R5,7,12 and 24. 12. This Court has perused all the relevant material records placed by way of typedset of documents and also rulings of Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on which reliance has been placed on by the counsel. 13. The only issue in both the Writ Petitions are pertaining to interse seniority of promotee Sub-Inspectors and directly recruited Sub-Inspectors. The petitioners were all appointed on 18.11.2006 on temporary basis. Even in their appointment order, it is made clear that their appointment was only temporary and they could claim any preferential rights under such appointment. However, subsequently the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.302 (Home) dated 27.02.2008 and regularised the promotion of the petitioners on 17.04.2008. It is the case of the petitioners that even though they were regularized only on 17.04.2008, they were promoted even as early as on 18.11.2006 and therefore the effective date for considering the seniority should be 18.11.2006 and not 17.04.2008. According to the petitioners, the delay in regularising the services was only because of administrative reasons attributable to the State and absolutely nothing can be imputed against the petitioners for such delay. 14. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1581 of 2010. It is seen from the said judgment that this Court, placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Haryana and Ors Vs. Dinesh Kumar, reported in 2008 (1) Supreme 296 , held that for the purposes of fixation of seniority, the relevant date must be the date on which the concerned employee was selected and not otherwise. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruits Class II, Engineering Officers Association and Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar, reported in 2008 (1) Supreme 296 , held that for the purposes of fixation of seniority, the relevant date must be the date on which the concerned employee was selected and not otherwise. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruits Class II, Engineering Officers Association and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 , while dealing with a similar set of facts held that the period of continuous officiation by a Government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority and that the principle for deciding interse seniority has to conform to the principles of equality spelt out in Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also held that where an appointment was made by way of a stopgap arrangement, without considering claims of all eligible and available persons and without following the rules of appointment, the experience on such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a regular appointee because there is a qualitative difference in both the appointments and it would lead to a case of treating two unequals as equal. However, when the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till his services were regularised in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointment, then there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority. In fact the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly held that when the initial appointment was adhoc and not according to rules, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for considering seniority. 15. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dalilah Sojah Vs. State of Kerala and Ors, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 641 , for the proposition that where the employee was made to suffer for no fault of his or hers or had a right to be appointed when vacancies arose, such right cannot be taken away merely because of delay or inaction on the part of the Government in notifying the appointment. He would also place reliance on another judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Surendra Narain Singh and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1998 5 SCC 246 . He would also place reliance on another judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Surendra Narain Singh and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1998 5 SCC 246 . However, on a reading of the said judgment, this Court finds that it relates to a case where the rights of the State Government to carry forward vacancies/posts that were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and where the nominations and appointments of the candidates were delayed for non preparation of a supplementary list as a result of misconception of law, the Apex Court held that the candidates should not be made to suffer. 16. Per contra, the respondents would place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.740 of 2017 dated 11.10.2018 and the order in Review passed in the very same matter which also subsequently attained finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 02.09.2019. On a reading of the judgment of the Division Bench on 12.12.2018, it is seen that where a person was temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspector as against a direct recruitment post such a person cannot steal a march over directly recruited Sub-Inspectors. A Review Petition was filed. There also, the Hon''ble Division Bench held that temporary promotion granted to the review applicant will not enure to him for any other purpose, on account of lack of vacancy. The challenge to the judgment in Writ Appeal as well as Review was also unsuccessful before the Apex Court. 17. The facts in the said Writ Appeal proceedings are more or less identical to the facts on hand. Here admittedly, the petitioners were appointed only on a temporary basis on 18.11.2006. Even their promotion order, clearly spelt out that they are promoted as Sub-Inspectors only on temporary basis and as against the existing rank promotees quota for the year 2006-07 and that they shall not be considered as a regular promotion and that they would not be regarded as probationers in the post or be entitled by reason of such temporary appointment to any preferential claim to future appointments to the post. When the petitioners were fully aware of the conditions of their promotion as Sub-Inspectors, it would not be open to them having accepted the post and all benefits thereto and served as Sub-Inspectors on temporary basis, to subsequently turn around and claim seniority from the said date of temporary promotion. Admittedly, the petitioners were all regularised in 2008. However, they claim seniority from the date of their temporary appointment. Such a claim is clearly fallacious especially in the very teeth of their promotion order itself, which made two things very clear (i) their appointment was purely temporary and (ii) they could not claim any benefits or preferential claims in view of such temporary appointment. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No740 of 2017 and which came to be confirmed upto the Hon''ble Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 18. In so far as the decisions relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench judgment reported in W.A.No.1581 of 2010, that was a case where there is a delay in sending the petitioner therein for training though he as selected for the batch 1994-95. That was a case of regular appointment and therefore, this Court held on those facts that the petitioner has to be given the benefits of his initial selection. In so far as reliance placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruits Class II, Engineering Officers Association and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 , as this Court has already pointed out that the Supreme Court made a distinction between cases where an incumbent was appointed according to rule where his seniority would be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of confirmation and to cases where the initial appointment was only adhoc or more stopgap arrangement, in which cases officiation period would not be counted for considering seniority. Therefore, the decision that the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance on, actually goes against the case canvassed by the petitioners. The petitioners cannot dispute the fact that their initial promotion was only on a temporary basis. Therefore, the decision that the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance on, actually goes against the case canvassed by the petitioners. The petitioners cannot dispute the fact that their initial promotion was only on a temporary basis. In other words it was on an adhoc basis which the Hon''ble Constitution Bench of Supreme Court discussed at length and held that such persons cannot claim the benefit of the period served on a temporary basis. Further, the question of delay and laches, as rightly pointed out by the respondents also does not help the petitioners cause. The petitioners seek to challenge the ''C'' list for the year 2006-2007 only in 2019. Even their first representation was given in December 2015 as admittedly seen in the Writ Petition. The petitioners have taken their own sweet time to approach this Court and even on the ground of delay and laches the petitioners are disentitled to relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India. To sum up, the petitioners, not only on the ground of delay and laches but also on the merits of their claims set up are not entitled to any relief from this Court. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.