ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 26.10.2022 and to quash the same. The petitioner seeks that his seniority must the refixed along with those who had been selected and appointed in the process of selection for the year 2012-13 as Grade-II Police Constable on 18.02.2013. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it had been stated that the petitioner had applied for selection as Grade-II Police Constable through the recruitment process for the year 2012-13. However, he was rejected stating that a Criminal Case had been registered against him. With respect to that particular aspect, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.15390/2013. By an order dated 20.05.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside that particular order, which was impugned in the said writ petition. The operative portion of the said order is as follows: "15. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 05.12.2012 refusing to provide appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner faced criminal case is liable to be quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs." 3. Naturally, in pursuance to the above order, the respondent had appointed the petitioner for the batch 2012-13. It is only imperative that his seniority is refixed along with his batchmates. The petitioner had given a representation in this regard. That representation was rejected by the respondents placing reliance on Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Services) Act 2016, which reads as follows: "Application for the revision of seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service class category or grade or within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority as the case may be. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not, however, be applicable to cases of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts." The respondents had also placed reliance on Rule 35(f) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, which reads as follows: "Application for the revision of seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service class category or grade or within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority as the case may be. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not, however, be applicable to cases of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts." But, however, a learned Single Judge of this Court, In W.P.(MD) No.15958 of 2023 (R. Veerapandian vs. The Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai, and another), had examined a similar issue and had held as follows: 6. This Court has already held in more than couple of cases in favour of the persons, similarly placed like the petitioner. The hesitation of the respondents to revise the petitioner's seniority on par with his batchmates of the year 2012-13 is unwarranted. In few cases wherein the request of revising seniority of a similarly placed person was rejected by the appointing authority, this Court has categorically held that the delay in appointing the petitioner has resulted from the mistake of fact committed by the appointing authority. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for revision of his seniority on par with his batchmates of the year 2012-13. 7. A learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.5356 of 2023 (M.Mohan Vs. The Director General of Police & Others) , dated 06.06.2023 has been passed an order in similar lines. The relevant portion of which is extracted as follows: “5. I carefully considered the rival contention and went through the materials on record. The issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res integra. An identical issue arose for consideration in W.P.No.22454 of 2021 vide order dated 27.10.2021. The writ petition was allowed in the following terms:- “7. The relevant portion of which is extracted as follows: “5. I carefully considered the rival contention and went through the materials on record. The issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res integra. An identical issue arose for consideration in W.P.No.22454 of 2021 vide order dated 27.10.2021. The writ petition was allowed in the following terms:- “7. This is the case where the petitioner has successfully cleared examinations and the mile stone prescribed for qualifying himself to the post of Grade II Police Constable in the recruitment since during 2001-2003. However, the petitioner was not selected on the ground that the petitioner was medically unfit on account of bilateral flat feet which has been considered and not to be a qualifying for appointing the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable. The delay in getting appointed with the respondents was not on account of the fault of the petitioner but on account of the stand taken by the respondents. As a matter of fact under similar circumstances in W.P.(MD)No.33479 of 2016 by an order dated 02.09.2021, the appointment was directed to be given pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.3273 of 2016, dated 25.01.2008. The issue is no longer res-integra and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner. There the petitioner had sought for refixing of seniority to include his name in the appropriate list and selection list during the year 2001- 2003 for the post of Police Constable with effect from the date of training. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed with consequential relief to the petitioner. The respondents are therefore directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the Service Register of the petitioner by refixing the seniority of the petitioner along with the batchmates who participated in the Recruitment called for during the year 2001-2003. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 6. I am inclined to adopt the very same approach. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was not at all at fault. Only because the recruiting agency proceeded on misconception that the petitioner's vision was defective, he was not appointed. I am inclined to adopt the very same approach. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was not at all at fault. Only because the recruiting agency proceeded on misconception that the petitioner's vision was defective, he was not appointed. If everything had taken place in the appropriate time sequence, the petitioner would have been sent for training in the year 2012 itself. Therefore, for the fault committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Lost of three years seniority will definitely have serious civil consequence. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner's application should be rejected as barred by limitation. Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant (Condition of Service) Act, 2016 is as follows:- “Application for the revision of seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service, class, category or grade or within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority, as the case may be. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not however be applicable to cases of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts.” The provision itself makes it clear that limitation will not be applicable to cases of rectifying orders resulting from mistake of facts. The case on hand would fall under such category. Non-inclusion of the petitioner in the seniority list of the year 2012 is a mistake of fact. 7. In this view of the matter, the orders impugned in the writ petition are set aside.” 8. In fully consonance to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court discussed supra, I hereby direct the respondents to fix the petitioner's seniority with the recruitment batch of the year 2012-13 within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, this Court makes it clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any arrears of pay for the said period 2012-2015. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs." 4. However, this Court makes it clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any arrears of pay for the said period 2012-2015. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs." 4. In view of these facts, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be considered on the same footing as that of his batchmates recruited in the year 2012-13. A direction is given to the respondent to refix the seniority of the petitioner. The petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefits, but, however, only for the service benefits to be considered from the period 2012-13 as that of his batchmates for the purpose of pension. 5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. W.M.P. No.16495 of 2024, which was filed to dispense with the production of the original impugned order passed by the second respondent, stands allowed.