IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 12.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.34188 of 2006 M.Rathinam, Head Constable 397 Manamadurai Police Station Sivagangai District. .. Petitioner/Applicant vs 1.The Director-General of Police, Chennai – 4. 2.The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Ramanathapuram Range, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Sivagangai. 4.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Ramanathapuram. .. Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.10139 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to issue a direction directing the respondents herein to include the applicant's name in the 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police drawn for the year 1998 in R.O.546/98, R.C.No.A1/14324/98 dated 08.11.1998 by the second respondent herein in the appropriate place with due seniority and consequentially direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 08.11.1998 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner :S.Ravi & Sudha Ravi For Respondents :S.Sivashanmugam(Govt.Advocate) O R D E R This writ petition is filed to issue a direction directing the respondents herein to include the applicant's name in the 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police drawn for the year 1998 in R.O.546/98, R.C.No.A1/14324/98 dated 08.11.1998 by the second respondent herein in the appropriate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ place with due seniority and consequentially direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 08.11.1998 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. The ground raised in the writ petition is that the pendency of the punishment should not be a ground to reject his claim for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Admittedly, on the crucial date, the punishment was in force and therefore, the claim of the petitioner was not considered. Since the punishment, which was challenged in the writ petition earlier has been dismissed by this Court, and in view of G.O.Ms.No. 368 P&AR, dated 18.10.1993, the name was not considered. There is no merit in the claim as per law. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ra To 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai - 4. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram Range, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Sivagangai. 4. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Ramanathapuram. 1 cc To Mr.S.Ravi, Advocate, SR.9553. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.9845. W.P.No.34188 of 2006 SP(CO) RVL 03.03.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/