IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28-01-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU W.P.NOs.12751, 19859, 19860, 19861, 19862 of 2004, 42318, 44369 of 2006, 16388, 21204, 33893 & 36679 of 2007 8955 to 8965, 9224 and 9225 of 2008 and WPMP.NOs.23887, 23889, 23891of 2004 M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 & 2 of 2007 W.P.No.12751 of 2004 C.P. Ravichandran S/o.C.P. Ramachandran .. Petitioner Vs. 1. P. Rajan 2. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 3. The Director, Forensic Sciences Department, Forensic House, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 4. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 600 104. 5. P. Subbulakshmi 6. K. Hemavathi 7. R. Banumathi 8. E. Ezhilarasi 9. K.P. Devarajan 10. M. Karpakam .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP No.19859 of 2004 to 19862/2004 P.Subbalakshmi ..Petitioner in WP 19859/2004 M.Karpagam ..Petitioner in WP 19860/2004 K.Hemavathi ..Petitioner in WP 19861/2004 R.Banumathi ..Petitioner in WP 19862/2004 -vs- 1.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 2.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 3.The Director, Forensic Science Department, Forensic House,Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 4.P.Rajan 5.C.P.Ravichandran ..Respondents 1 to 5 in WP 19859 to 19860/2004 6.K.Hemavathi 7.R.Banumathi 8.E.Ezhilrani 9.K.P.Devarajan 10.M.Karpagam ..Respondents 6 to 10 in WP 19859/2004 6.P.Subbalakshmi 7.K.Hemavathi 8.R.Banumathi 9.E.Ezhilrani 10.K.P.Devarajan ..Respondents 6 to 10 in WP 19860/2004 6.P.Subbalakshmi 7.R.Banumathi 8.E.Ezhilrani 9.K.P.Devarajan 10.M.Karpagam ..Respondents 6 to 10 in WP 19861/2004 6.P.Subbalakshmi 7.K.Hemavathi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.E.Ezhilrani 9.K.P.Devarajan 10.M.Karpagam ..Respondents 6 to 10 in WP 19862/2004 WP 42318/2006 P.Ettiyappan ..Petitioner in WP 42318/2006 -vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 3.The Director ,Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai. 4.C.P.Ravichandran 5.P.Subbalakshmi 6.K.Hemavathi 7.Ezhilarasi 8.R.Bhanumathi 9.K.P.Devarajan 10.K.Karpagam ..Respondents in WP 42318/2006 WP 44369 of 2006 C.P.Ravichandran ..Petitioner in WP 44369/2006 -vs- 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 2.The Director, Forensic Science Department, "Forensic House",Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3.R.Neelakandapillai 4.Kalimuthan 5.Ravisankar 6.Jalaja Pattabiraman 7.P.Shihari https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.Kamalakshi Krishnamurthy 9.V.K.Selvarani 10.S.Vijaya 11.L.Chandrasekaran 12.V.Kanakasabapathy 13.P.Ettiappan 14.A.R.Mohan 15.V.Mohan 16.R.Krishnamurthy 17.R.Vasantha 18.K.P.Devarajan 19.P.Rajan 20.P.Kalarani 21.R.Radha Ramani ..Respondents in WP 44369/2006 W.P.No.16388 of 2007 C.P. Ravichandran Petitioner in W.P.16388 of 2007 Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 2.The Director, Forensic Science Department, "Forensic House",Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3.R.Neelakandapillai 4.Kalimuthan 5.Ravisankar 6.Kamalkshi Krishnamoorthi 7.V.K. Selvarani 8. S. Vijaya 9. V. Kanagasabapathi 10. P. Ettiappan 11. R. Krishnamoorthi 13. K.P. Devarajan 14. P. Rajan 15. P. Kalaani 16. R. Radha Ramani 17. R. Jayaprakash ... Respondent in W.P.16388 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP 21204 of 2007 1.M.Karpagam 2.G.Lakshmi 3.V.T.Vimali ..Petitioners -vs- 1.A.Viswa Monna Mohammed 2.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Dept., Secretariat, Chennai -9. 3.The Director, Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 4.R.Bhanumathy 5.S.Geethalakshmi 6.K.V.K.Radhamani (Retd.) 7.M.Radhika 8.V.Karpagam 9.M.Gomathi 10.M.S.Hameetha Begum 11.P.Kirubakaran ..Respondents WP No.33893 of 2007 S.Muralikrishna ..Petitioner -vs- 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Government Estate, Chennai-2. 3.The Director, Forensic Science Department, Forensic House,Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.A.R.Mohan 5.V.Mohan 6.Krishnamurthy 7.Vasantha 8.K.P.Devarajan 9.P.Rajan 10.Tmt.P.Kalarani 11.R.Radharamani 12.R.Jayaprakash 13.C.P.Ravichandran 14.P.Subbulakshmi 15.K.Hemavathi 16.E.Ezhilarasi ..Respondents WP 36679 of 2007 S.Muralikrishna ..Petitioner -vs- 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Government Estate, Chennai. 3.The Director, Forensic Science Department, Forensic House,Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 4.A.R.Mohan Assistant Director in Documents Division, Forensic Science Department, Forensic House, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-4. 5.V.Mohan 6.R.Krishnamoorthy 7.R.Vasantha 8.K.P.Devarajan ..Respondents W.P.8955 of 2008 to 8965 of 2008 S.Vijaya ... Petitioner in W.P.8955/08 Ettiappan ...Petitioner in W.P.8956/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.Ravishankar ...Petitioner in W.P.8957/08 V.Mohan ...Petitioner in W.P.8958/08 K.P.Devarajan ...Petitioner in W.P.8959/08 R.Vasantha ...Petitioner in W.P.8960/08 A.R.Mohan ...Petitioner in W.P.8961/08 Dr.Kamalakshi Krishnamoorthy...Petitioner in W.P.8962/08 V.Kanagasabapathy ...Petitioner in W.P.8963/08 R.Krishnamurthy ...Petitioner in W.P.8964/08 N.Kalimuthan ...Petitioner in W.P.8965/08 -vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Secretary to Govt, Home (Police) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2. The Director Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. 3. C.P.Ravichandran 4. K.Hemavathy 5. R.Banumathy 6. V.Geethalakshmi .. Respondents in W.P.8955 to 8965/08 W.P.No.9224 of 2008 & W.P.9225/08 V.K.Selvarani ..Petitioner in W.P.9224/08 R.Neelakandalpillai ...Petitioner in W.P.9225/08 -vs- 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Secretary to Govt, Home (Police) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2. The Director Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondents in W.P.9224 & 9225/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.443 of 1999, dated 9.12.2003 and quash the same. (W.P.12751 of 2004, 19859 to 19862/04,) calling for the records to the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same. (W.P.16388 of 2007) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4155 of 1999, dated 9.12.2003 and quash the same. (W.P.NO.21204/07) Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent i.e, proc.No.A1/42200/2006 00 No.191/2006 dated 09.10.2006 annexure Part-II Revised seniority List of Scientific Assistants Grade I and Proc.No.A1/42200/2006 00 No.194/2006, dated 25.10.2006 Annexure Part-III Revised Seniority List of Scientific Assistants Grade - I and quash the same with a consequential direction to fix the seniority taking into account the date of appointment and date of completion of probation as the basis for Inter-Se-Seniority between the petitioner and the Respondents 3 to 21 herein in the Department (W.P.No.44369/06) Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate, writ, call for the records on the file of the respondents 1 and 3 in their proceedings G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.99 and also Proc A1/5772/95,O.O. No.77/95 dated 23.6.95 respectively and quash the same to the extent of placement of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 10 revise the seniority and to redraw the panel placing the applicant over and above the respondents 4 to 10 with all monetary and service benefits. (W.P.42318/06) Petition presented to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of Respondents herein with regard to the Impugned G.O. (MS) No.473 Home (Police 18) Department) Dt.2.4.2007 issued by the 1st Respondent herein based on the 3rd Respondents proceedings of the Director - Proc.No.A1/42200/2006 - 0.0.No.190/06 Dt.9.10.2006 and Proc.No.A1/42200/2006 - 0.0 No.191/06 Dt.9.10.2006 and Proc.No.A1.42200/2006 - 0.0.No.194/06 Dt.25.10.2006 and quash the same with the consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to fix the interse seniority among the persons working in the Tamilnadu Forensic Science Services on the basis of date of their entry into service, completion of probation and regularisation in the feeder category of scientific Assistant Grade - II in the Tamilnadu Forensic Sciences Department (W.P.33893/2007) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition presented to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent herein with regard to the impugned promotional order issued by the 3rd respondent vide their proceedings (the Director/I/C/ Forensic Sciences Department made in No. A1/41364/2007/O.O No. 184/2007 dated 5.11.2007 which is based on the G.O.R1 NO. 2409 Home (police 18) Department dt. 02.11.2007 issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same in so far as the respondents 4 to 8 with the consequential direction to the 3rd respondent herein to promote the petitioner as Assistant Director in the Tamiladu Forensic Department per the Original panel seniority lists of scientific officers as arrived by the G.O Ms.1224 dated 07.09.99 (W.P.36679 of 2007) Petitions presented to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms.No. 425, Home (Police 18) Department dated 5.4.2008 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in No. A1/36036/2008, O.O. No. 37/2008 dated 8.4.2008 and quash the same. (W.P.8955 to 8965 of 2008 and W.P.9224 and 9225/08) For Petitioner : Mr.C.V. Vijayakumar in W.P.Nos.12751, 19859 to 19862/04, 44369/06, 33893, 36679 of 2007 For Petitioner in WP.16388/2007 : Mr.M. Govindaraj Respondents 3 to 6 in WP.Nos.8955 to 8965/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner in WPs.8955 to 8965, : Mr.T.S. Sivagnanam 9224 & 9225/2008 For Petitioner : Mr.C. Selvaraj in WP.21204/2007 Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Mani For Petitioner in WP.42318/2006 : Mr.R. Singaravelan For Respondent-State : Mr.M. Dhandapani Special Govt. Pleader For Respondent-4 in W.P.No.19859/04 For Respondent-14 in WP.16388/2007 : Mr.L. Chandrakumar For Respondents 13,14, 16 & 19 in WP.44369/06 For Respondent-8 in WP.44369/2006 : Ms. Narmadha Sampath For Respondents 3,4, 5 and 10 : Mr.S.S. Vasudevan in WP.44369/2006 For Respondent-1 in WP.No.21204/2007 : M/s.G. Ramapriya COMMON JUDGMENT P.K. MISRA, J The seemingly never ending controversy revolving round the question of inter se seniority in the Forensic Science Department is the subject matter of all these writ petitions. 2. The background facts are as follows :- It appears that during 1959, the Chemical Examiners Laboratory under the control of Medical Department and the Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue and the Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department are stated as “State Forensic Science Laboratory” and governed by the Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.912, Home Department, dated 28.3.1964 for Madras State Forensic Science Subordinate Service. Subsequently, in 1967, the State Forensic Science Laboratory was bifurcated to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chemical Examiners Laboratory functioning independently with Special Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1611 dated 16.6.1971 and State Forensic Science Laboratory functioning under the Police Department with Special Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1306 dated 14.5.1971. By G.O.Ms.No.33, Home Department, dated 4.1.1971, State Forensic Science Laboratory was bifurcated as Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department and Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue. Subsequently, in 1973, there was a merger of Chemical Examiners Laboratory and Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, which became known as “Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory”. During 1980, there was a further merger of The Prohibition & Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue and Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department and continued to be known as Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory. In 1984, this integrated unit was renamed as Forensic Sciences Department. The Government b G.O.Ms.No.2790, Home Department, dated 3.10.1986, issued Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Subordinate Service. In the interregnum, the Government had sanctioned number of posts temporarily in various cadres and number of recruitments in the feeder category of Scientific Assistant Grade II were made without any specific service rules. Simultaneously, Scientific Assistant Grade II already working in the Forensic Science Laboratory had also been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I. However, promotions had been given by following the approved list at the time of recruitment in the feeder category and also following the rule of reservation. Till November, 1982, almost the entire staff working in the Department was on temporary basis. The Government had issued a set of directions to regularise such temporary service retrospectively vide Government Letter No.48038/FS/82-6, Home Department, dated 2.11.1982. and accordingly temporary staff had been regularised. Draft inter se seniority for all the staff was published by Director's Memo No.A1/18652/86 dated 26.2.1987 and all the persons were invited to file their representations. After receipt of such representations, a revised seniority list was published on 3.11.1987 as per Director's Proceedings No.A1/18491/87 dated 3.11.1987. During 1993, there was some problem in grouping various divisions in the Department with different subjects such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology and large number of representations have been made. The Government through D.O. Lr.No.22429/Pol/93-1 Home (Pol-16) Department dated 30.4.1993, suggested the Director to form a Committee under the Chairmanship of the then Deputy Director to “study the practical difficulties experienced by the staff with present system of grouping of Divisions in the Forensic Sciences Department and also some lacunae in the Service Rules”. Accordingly, a Committee was formed as per Director's Memorandum No.A1/6732/93 dated 21.6.1993. Thereafter, the Director issued Memorandum No.A1/6732/93 dated 25.6.1993, wherein revision of seniority was also included as one of the subjects and based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such subsequent circular, the Chairman of the Committee sent notice to all the staff to send representation regarding grievance in the seniority. On the basis of the recommendation made by such Committee, the then Director issued a fresh seniority list as per Office Order No.77/95 dated 23.6.1995, wherein objections / representations were invited within a stipulated period. At such stage, representations had been made by several persons. In such seniority list, instead of taking the date of joining of Scientific Assistant Grade I as the relevant starting point of seniority, seniority in the feeder category,namely, Scientific Assistant Grade II, has been taken as the base. While such representations were still pending and matter had not been finalised, the Director issued a panel of promotion to the post of Scientific Officer in G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999. This G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999 became the starting point of the present set of litigations. 2.1 One P. Rajan filed O.A.No.443 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) for quashing G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8, dated 4.1.1999, so far as Respondents 3 to 9 in such applications were concerned and to extend all benefits, service and monetary, by according appropriate placement over and above the Respondents 3 to 9 with effect from 13.7.1983 as Scientific Assistant Grade I and other benefits of promotion. One A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, filed O.A.No.4155 of 1999 against R. Bhanumathy, M. Karpagam, S. Geethalkakshmi, K.V.K. Radhamani, M. Radhika, G. Lakshmi, V. Karpagam, M. Gomathi, V.T. Vimali, M.S. Hameetha Begam and P. Kirubakaran, Respondents 3 to 13 therein, for quashing the Proceedings issued the Director in Pro.No.A1/5772/95, dated 23.6.1995 and the Government Letter No.23203/Pol.XVI/99-2, dated 8.6.1999 and to promote him to the post of Scientific Officer with effect from the date when his immediate junior was promoted and above the Respondents 3 to 13 therein. H. Balashanmugham filed O.A.No.6831 of 1999 claiming similar relief. M. Udayakumar filed O.A.Nos.304 of 2001 and 2558 of 2003 and C. Ravindran filed O.A.Nos.326 of 2001 and 2557 of 2003. O.A.Nos.304 & 326 of 2001 had been filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.7 and 8, dated 4.1.1999, whereas O.A.Nos.2557 and 2558 of 2003 had been filed challenging the reversion of seniority made in 2002. The Tribunal by common order dated 9.12.2003, allowed all such Original Applications and quashed the impugned Government Orders and the seniority list and directed the Government to fix the seniority of the applicant by taking into account the date of appointment as Scientific Assistant Grade I. It was further directed that if any of the juniors of the applicant had been promoted as Scientific Officer, the applicant should be promoted from the date on which his juniors were promoted. 2.2 C.P. Ravichandran, Respondent No.3 in O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.12751 of 2004 and an order of interim stay was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed on 30.4.2004, which was made absolute on 13.9.2004 in WPMP.No.14854 of 2004 in WP.No.12751 of 2004. 2.3 P. Subbulakshmi, Respondent No.4 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19859 of 2004. M. Karpagam, Respondent No.9 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19860 of 2004. K. Hemavathy, Respondent No.5 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19861 of 2004. R. Banumathi, Respondent No.6 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19862 of 2004. The other respondents, namely, E. Ezhilarasi and K.P. Devarajan, apparently have not filed any writ petition challenging the order passed in O.A.No.443 of 1999. M. Karpagam, G. Lakshmi and V.T. Vimali, who were Respondent Nos.4, 8 and 11 in O.A.No.4155 of 1999 filed by A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, have filed W.P.Nos.21204 of 2007 against the very same order pertaining to O.A.No.4155 of 1999. 3. O.A.No.2336 of 1999, had been filed by Mr.P. Ettiyappan before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.1999 and also the Proc.No.A1/5772/95, O.O.No.77/95 dated 23.6.1995 with a prayer to redraw the panel and also to revise the seniority list claiming seniority over Respondents 4 to 10 in such O.A. Such Original Application, on abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, has come to the High Court on transfer and has been renumbered as W.P.No.42318 of 2006. In such Original Application converted as Writ Petition, C.P. Ravichandran, P. Subbalakshmi, K. Hemavathi, Ezhilarasi, R. Bhanumathi, K.P. Devarajan and K. Karpagam are respectively the Respondents 4 to 10. Notice is not ready regarding Respondent No.6, namely, K. Hemavathi and Respondent No.9, namely, K.P. Devarajan. However, these persons have been represented through their counsels in other connected matters. Such petitioner has also filed W.P.No.8956 of 2008, which shall be noticed a little later. In the Original Application, the basic grievance is regarding the seniority list dated 23.6.1995 by contending that earlier seniority list dated 3.11.1987 had not been challenged. Similarly it is contended that the panel was prepared on the basis of wrong seniority. It has been claimed that as a matter of fact he had been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I ahead of the respondents in the writ petition mainly because such respondents had declined to go on promotion to the place outside the Chennai and preferred to continue as Scientific Assistant Grade II. It has been also indicated that against revision of seniority list dated 23.6.1995, representations had been made by him on 17.7.1995 and 26.8.1996, which were yet to be considered by the filing of the O.A., and yet the persons junior to him have been included in the panel. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. After disposal of such O.A.No.443 of 1999 and other connected matters, the Government had also directed the Director to form a Committee to study the problems relating to seniority. Accordingly, the Committee headed by the Deputy Director went into the matter and on that basis as per Director's Proceedings No.A1/42200/2006, Office Order No.194/2006 dated 25.10.2006, seniority list had been prepared. This has been subsequently approved by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.473, Home Department, dated 2.4.2007 has been issued. 5. C.P. Ravichandran has filed W.P.No.44369 of 2006 by challenging the seniority list dated 25.10.2006. The very same petitioner has also filed W.P.No.16388 of 2007 against G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007. One Murali Krishnan, who was not a party to O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.33893 of 2007 challenging G.O.Ms.No.473 Home (Police 18) Department, dated 23.4.2007, issued by the Government on the basis of the Proceedings of the Director, Forensic Sciences Department, dated 9.10.2006 and 25.10.2006 and for a consequential direction to fix the inter se seniority among the persons working in the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Services on the basis of date of their entry into service, completion of probation and regularisation in the feeder category of Scientific Assistant Grade II. During pendency of all these writ petitions, certain persons were promoted as Assistant Directors making it clear that such promotion was subject to result of W.P.No.16388 of 2007. Muralikrishna had also filed W.P.No.36679 of 2007 challenging promotional order issued by the Director in Proceedings No.A1/41364/2007/O.O.No.184/2007 dated 5.11.2007, based on G.O.Rt.No.2409 Home (Pol.18) Department, dated 2.11.2007 so far as the Respondents 4 to 8 therein with a consequential direction to promote him as Assistant Director as per the original panel of seniority list of Scientific Officers arrived by G.O.Ms.No.1224 dated 7.9.1999. However, since subsequently Contempt Applications were filed, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.425 Home (Police 18) Department, dated 5.4.2008 and the Director issued Office Order No.37/2008 dated 8.4.2008 reverting such persons from the post of Assistant Director to the former post of Scientific Officer. Mrs.S. Vijaya, Mr.P. Ettiyappan, Mr.P. Ravishankar, Mr.V. Mohan, Mr.K.P. Devarajan, Mrs.R. Vasantha, Mr.A.R. Mohan, Mrs. Kamalakshi Krishnamoorthy, Mr.V. Kanagasabapathy, Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy and Mr.N. Kalimuthan have filed W.P.Nos.8955 to 8965 of 2008 respectively challenging the order of reversion reverting them from the post of Assistant Director to Scientific Officer, wherein an order of interim stay had been passed thus staying the order of reversion. C.P. Ravichandran, K. Hemavathy, R. Banumathy, who are the petitioners in W.P.Nos.12751, 19861 and 19862 of 2004 respectively have got themselves impleaded as Respondents 3 to 6 and similarly one V. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Geethalakshmi, who apparently has not filed any writ petition against the order relating to O.A.No.443 of 1999, had got herself impleaded as Respondent No.6. Subsequently, Mrs.V.K. Selvarani and Mr.R. Neelakanda Pillai have filed W.P.Nos.9224 and 9225 of 2008 against the very same reversion order. 6. In this latter group of writ petitions the submission is to the effect that W.P.No.12751 of 2004 was pending before the High Court and, therefore, it was inappropriate, unjust and illegal to issue any order of reversion, even though the matter of seniority had not yet been finalised. It is to be noticed that approval of the panel for positing such petitioners as Assistant Directors was made as per G.O.Ms.No.1503 dated 24.10.2007, whereunder it is clearly mentioned that the panel is approved subject to outcome of W.P.No.16388 of 2007 filed by C.P. Ravichandran against the seniority list of Scientific Officers approved in G.O.Ms.No.473, Home Department dated 2.4.2007. It is thus obvious that the fate of these writ petitions is interlinked with the question of seniority as projected in W.P.Nos.12751/2004, 16388 and 33893/2007. 7. The stand of the Respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.Nos.8955 to 8965 of 2008 is reflected in the petition filed for vacating the stay in W.P.No.8955 of 2008. In such affidavit, it is stated that the person concerned was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II ahead of the writ petitioner in this group of cases and such persons had been temporarily promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I under fortuitous circumstances. In the seniority list dated 3.11.1987, many juniors, who had been made Scientific Assistant Grade I under fortuitous circumstances had been ranked above the employees like Respondents 3 to 6. The rule of relinquishment was clarified only by G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 15.3.1988 and, therefore, those who had temporarily relinquished or temporarily promoted and reverted before issuance of such G.O., on 15.3.1988, could not be penalised and similarly those who had been temporarily promoted de hors the rules under fortuitous circumstances could not be considered as seniors in Scientific Assistant Grade I. On 5.2.1992, a fresh regularisation order has been issued to those who had been appointed before 3.10.1986 in consultation with Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The fresh seniority list was issued on 23.6.1995 in respect of those appointed and promoted before 3.10.1986, which had not been challenged by any of the writ petitioners and had become final. Subsequently, a seniority list was issued for Scientific Assistant Grade I on 12.1.1999, which reflected the correct position. Before that G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999 had been issued containing the panel for promotion for the year 1996-1997 and 1997-98, wherein the writ petitioners had not been included. In O.A.No.443 of 1999 filed by Mr. Rajan and in other O.As., the seniority list dated 23.6.1995 was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ specifically challenged and the Tribunal had granted relief in those matters beyond the scope of such Original Applications and such orders have been challenged by various aggrieved persons by way of writ petitions. C.P. Ravichandran himself had filed W.P.No.12751 of 2004, wherein stay had been granted. Seniority list has been revised in 2006 in utter disregard of the stay order and the persons had been promoted. C.P. Ravichandran himself has filed W.P.No.44369 of 2006 challenging fixation of seniority in October, 2006, and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007 has been challenged in W.P.No.16388 of 2007. Only during pendency of such writ petitions, promotion order in G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007 has been issued in violation of the stay order and therefore such promotees have been rightly reverted. 8. In W.P.No.21204 of 2007 the petitioners are challenging the order dated 9.12.2003 in O.A.No.4155 of 1999, which had been filed by A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, Respondent No.1 in the present writ petition, wherein