Madras High Court

R.Karthikeyan vs The Tamilnadu Public Service ... on 29 April, 2025

Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan

Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan

                                                                                      W.P.No. 22499 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated:29.04.2025

                                                           Coram:

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mrs.V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                             W.P.No. 22499 of 2023 &
                                             W.M.P.No.21938 of 2023

                R.Karthikeyan                                                         ...Petitioner

                                                             Versus

                1.        The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
                          rep. By its Secretary,
                          TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar,
                          Park Town, Chennai – 600 003

                2.        The State of Tamilnadu
                          rep. By the Principal Secretary,
                          Tourism, Culture and Religious
                          Endowment Department,
                          Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009

                3.        The Commissioner,
                          HR&CE Department,
                          Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34

                4.        K.Chitra Devi
                          Assistant Commissioner
                          HR&CE Department,
                          Thiruvallur                                                 ...Respondents




                Page 1 / 17




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )
                                                                                        W.P.No. 22499 of 2023

                Prayer:
                      Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a

                Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the

                1st     respondent     in   Letter    No.431/OTD-D/(Adv.No.211/(2009)/2022            dated

                26.05.2023 to quash in sofar as the placement of the petitioner at 14-A3 is

                concerned and to consequently assign appropriate placement above K.Chitra

                Devi below Jayachandran at 11-A with all other service accruals arising thereto.



                          For Petitioner             : Mr.L.Chandrakumar

                          For Respondent             : Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R1
                                                       Standing Counsel for TNPSC
                                                       Mr.Karthikeyan for R2 and R3
                                                       Government Advocate
                                                       Mr.R.Amardeep for R4

                                                           ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 1 st

respondent in Letter No.431/OTD-D/(Adv.No.211/(2009)/2022 dated 26.05.2023

to quash in sofar as the placement of the petitioner at 14-A3 is concerned and to

consequently assign appropriate placement above K.Chitra Devi below

Jayachandran at 11-A with all other service accruals arising thereto.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

2.The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner, are as follows:

(i) The petitioner, pursuant to the notification of the 3rd respondent in

Group-VII A services for the year 2008-2009, was appointed as Executive Officer

Grade – I with effect from 09.11.2011. The initial notification was for about 14

vacancies and consequent upon 6 selected candidates, 5 simultaneously getting

selected to the post of Assistant Commissioner and the other accepting the other

services, the petitioner was included from the reserve list on the basis of roaster

vacancy, which had been caused due to either non-joining of the selected

candidate or in having left for joining the post of Assistant commissioner. Ever

since the joining the post of Executive Officer, Grade-I, the petitioner has been

discharging a clear and unblemished record of service for the past over a decade.

(ii) Further, the next avenue of promotion based on seniority is to that of

Assistant Commissioner, as such the respondents had approved as many as 24

vacancies, which had caused due to various reasons such as promotion of the

incumbents and other exigencies but for the petitioner's claim being appropriately

considered the above said vacancies are likely to be occupied by and large

juniors and also that of promotees from the feeder category, who will be

encroaching upon the quota intended for the direct recruit and to be occupied and

held by the petitioner's category in accordance with strict seniority on the basis of

the merit ranking will now be encroached upon by ineligible hands under the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

guise of having been promoted in the interregnum, which if allowed to be

performed would end result in the dictum of law being nullified, thereby the same

is impermissible.

(iii) The seniorty that was initially assigned to the petitioner and other

similarly situated individuals situates on the basis of selection followed by a roster

to be adopted by the respective departments was called in question and

ultimately, the Hon'ble Apex Court by a detailed Judgment resulting in Contempt

Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.6415/2021 in SLP (Civil) No.2886 of 2016 wherein and

whereby the State Government of all 54 departments was directed to recast the

seniority in strict adherence to merit ranking by adjusting of all appointments

followed by promotions already made by its order dated 18.04.2023 and has

directed the same to be placed for reporting compliance on 18.07.2023.

(iv) Also the state of affairs as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court is

liable to be re-done appropriately by the respondents, who have chosen to revise

and recast the seniority more particularly on the basis of the directions therein,

the 1st respondent issued a proceedings addressed to the 3rd respondent in letter

No.431/OTD-D/(Adv.No.211/2009)/2022 dated 26.05.2023 had intimated the

revised seniority list through the said proceedings and annexure thereto would

state that it is pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

reference, but it has miserably failed to strictly adhere, adopt and assign

appropriate placement in so far as the petitioner is concerned based on his marks

obtained in the examination / selection to the post of Executive Officer, Grade -I.

The said communication of the revised seniority list, which is not in conformity

with the directions has been communicated by the 3rd respondent through

Additional Commissioner (Administration) in Me.Ku.Na.Ka.No.28759/2022-I/L1

dated 07.07.2023, wherein the petitioner's placement in the seniority has been

improperly and wrongly assigned.

(iv) Further, insofar as the petitioner's merit marks are concerned, it is

513.00, as such, the petitioner ought to have been placed above K.Chitra

Devi(483) and below Jayachandran (513.00) as per the dictum of law holding the

field towards its proper implementation of the directives in its true letter and spirit.

Instead the placement as shown suffers not only violation, but also amounts to

the rights crystalized and conferred upon the petitioner by the Apex Court not

having been thwarted resulting in the exercise of power leading to total non-

application of mind coupled with arbitrariness despite the fact that the petitioner's

ranking should be assigned on merit basis dehors the roster point occupied by

the incumbent therein. Since there had occured patent illegality coupled with

irregularity in the assignment of seniority, the petitioner has come up with this

petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition arises

out of an order dated 26.05.2023, wherein the seniority of the petitioner has been

wrongly assigned instead of merit ranking and also that the dictum of law, which

would state that roster point cannot be put in place when merit is to be taken into

account. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh

Thanwar reported in [2003] (5) SCC 604] fixed the cut-off date as 10.03.2003 and

subsequently the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Santhosh Kumar's case

has repeatedly and categorically held that, be it whatever the roster may be, if

selection is conducted for one set of people, in the instant case, the notification of

the year 2008-2009 concluded on 09.11.2011 for the post of Executive Officer

Grade-I in HR&CE.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contend that in the instant

case, the notification of the year 2008-2009 concluded on 09.11.2011 for the post

of Executive Officer Grade-I in HR&CE. Out of the 14 selected candidates, 6 of

them got selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner, thereby creating six

vacancies for persons in the Reserve List. Those waiting in accordance with the

merit ranking were called upon and were appointed by proceedings on

12.04.2011, even though the original selection was forwarded on 24.03.2010 in

view of non-joining and that of vacancies caused, the reserve list termed it as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

supplemental list came to be given effect to. The homogeneous construction of

the selection is that all the 14, who were selected, be it by operation of a

supplemental / reserve list or to find their placement in the respective merit

ranking so that the merit marks obtained by these candidates are not sacrificed

by placing them below a person with lesser marks. The petitioner(R.Karthikeyan)

had obtained 513.00 marks. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, and also

that of the dictum of law holding the field that these persons, who have obtained

better merit ranking cannot be brought below a person, who has obtained lesser

merit.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner

R.Karthikeyan at 14A2, thereby the merit selection in which they have been

appointed has been given a total go by since 14A2 is placed below a person,

viz., Saravanan and Ramani, who have obtained 481.50 and 471.00 respectively,

thereby defeating the merit ranking. The said assignment of placement on a

wrong conception and misconstruction of the merit under the guise of petitioner

having been appointed on a later date viz., 09.11.2011 is without any basis as per

the dictum of law.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the selection

having been made for 14 posts and that 6 of them, who stood selected having not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

chosen to join the post, it is nothing but automatic that be it a supplementary or

reserve list, the selected candidates from the common selection have to find their

own merit ranking and not be placed before any person, who is less meritorious,

thereby the merit cannot be sacrificed and also run detrimental to the individual

for the simple reason that they were allowed to join at a later point of time, i.e., on

09.11.2011. The reserve/supplemental list is for an exigency contemplated in the

Rules 27(f) of the Act 14/2016 would inure to the benefit of the petitioner as

because it would state that the reserve list shall be operated against the vacancy

caused due to non-joining or left, thereafter, so long as the reserve list in force,

which means that when the petitioners were validly placed in the reserve list and

that the same stood operated due to non-joining of the candidates for various

reasons best known to them, the petitioner's merit ranking shall not be allowed to

be overlooked when Rule – 40 would specifically state that the placement will be

determined in the order of the list prepared by the recruiting agency viz, TNPSC

has assigned merit ranking, it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to

assign placement in the order of the merit marks obtained by the petitioners.

8. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates that admittedly,

the petitioner has got more marks than the persons below whom they have been

placed, i.e.,, Sl.No.14, 14Aa and 14A3 instead of 7A and 11A respectively, hence

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

the Writ petition is liable to be allowed by quashing the impugned order with

consequential direction to assign appropriate placement and other consequential

benefits.

9. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st

respondent by way of counter in W.P.No.No.22499 of 2023 averred as follows:-

(i) The petitioner is a candidates, who had applied to the commission for

the post of Executive Officer Grade-I and holding the post of Executive officer

Grade-I respectively in the Tamilnadu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Subordinate Service, 2008-2009 vide advertisement no.211 dated 29.07.2009,

wherein 14 vacancies were notified for the said post, which was held on

11.10.2009. The result of the written examination was published on 12.02.2010

and the oral test was held on 26.02.2010. The main selection list comprising the

details of 14 candidates was forwarded on 24.03.2010 to the head of department,

viz., The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Administration Department, Chennai – 600 034. Later, the Head of the

department had requested the Commission in C.No.20548/2011/L1 dated

12.04.2011 to allot substitute candidate to their department as six of the selected

candidates had joined and left, therefore, the supplemental selection list was

drawn for 6 candidates and forwarded by the Commission on 20.09.2011 to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

head of the department. The petitioner was selected from the supplemental list,

who obtained 517.50 and 513.00 marks respectively.

(ii) While so, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the order

of the 1st respondent dated 26.05.2023 in sofar as the placement of the petitioner

at Sl.No.14-A3 is concerned and to consequently assign appropriate placement

above one above K.Chitra Devi and below one Jayachandran at 11-A

respectively with all other service accruals arising thereto. In this connection, the

merit based seniority list for the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in the

Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Subordinate service,

2008-2009 was rearranged, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.6415/2021 in SLP (C) No.2886/2016 dated

18.04.2023 and forwarded to the Head of Department on 24.03.2010 and

26.05.2023 respectively. In the rearranged merit list with reference to the Hon'ble

Supreme Court's order, the regularly selected candidates were rearranged as per

merit and the supplemental selected candidates who came to be selected by right

on account of six candidates not joining or leaving were assigned seniority as per

merit in the supplemental selection category, as the supplemental selection was

on a later date. Therefore, the seniority of the candidates, who were selected

supplementally from the reserve list for this post had been fixed as per

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

specification in Proviso 6, section 27(f) of the Tamilnadu Government Servants

(Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

(iii) Further, when a similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble Benches

(Kerala & Delhi High Court in two different cases), the Hon'ble Division Bench of

High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT) No.172 of 2019 as well as the Hon'ble Division

Bench of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.14908 of 2022, CM APPLs 45835/2022

& 53190/2022 has upheld the seniority reckoned by the authorities therein. The

above said issue is also squarely covered by the Hon'ble Division Bench

Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.410 of 2024 dated 20.02.2024, therefore, the

action of TNPSC in fixing the seniority for the candidates is as per the

procedures, rules and law in force, hence the petitioner's request is without any

basis, thereby pleaded to dismiss the petition.

10.Heard the learned counsels on either sides and perused the documents

placed on record carefully.

12. It is to be noted that the petitioner rest on the contention that they

possess seniority, relevant service credentials, and academic qualifications that

ought to have been considered during the process. The petitioner further allege

the procedural lapses in the manner in which the selection was conducted,

suggesting that favouritism and lack of transparency undermined the integrity of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

the process. In response, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent (TNPSC)

has submitted that the selection process was carried out strictly in accordance

with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and

the Rules framed thereunder. It was further submitted that all applications were

scrutinized based on eligibility, merit, seniority-cum-fitness, and the norms laid

down by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. The 2nd and

3rd respondents, representing the State and HR&CE Department, also affirmed

that the selection and promotion were based on recommendations of the

Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and that no irregularity or illegality can

be attributed to the process. It was submitted that the 4th respondent was rightly

selected based on the norms and no bias has been shown.

13. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was made from the

reserve/supplemental list, following the non-joining of candidates initially selected.

It is the petitioner’s contention that, since he secured higher marks (513.0) in the

selection process, he ought to have been given seniority above those who scored

lesser marks, irrespective of their later date of appointment.

14. The central issue for consideration is whether a candidate appointed

later from the reserve list can claim seniority over candidates appointed earlier

from the main selection list solely on the basis of higher marks. While the Apex

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

Court in Contempt Petition in SLP No.2886/2016 did direct fixation of seniority

based on merit ranking, such directions did not override statutory rules applicable

to appointments from reserve lists, especially where appointments are staggered

over different time periods due to administrative exigencies. The judgment in Civil

Appeal No. 3767 of 2010 categorically laid down that seniority must be reckoned

from the date of regular appointment, and not merely from the merit ranking,

particularly in cases involving separate appointment orders arising out of

reserve/waiting lists, the Court observed:

"An offer of appointment or placement in a reserve list does not confer a vested right for claiming seniority above those who were appointed earlier, unless the rules so permit."

15. Further, the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service)

Act, 2016, specifically under Section 27(f) proviso 6, recognizes that

appointments from reserve lists are distinct, and seniority must be fixed based on

the date of joining when appointments are made at different times. The principle

of “merit-cum-seniority” applies within the same selection and appointment batch,

but cannot override the hierarchy established by different dates of entry into

service.

16. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner was appointed much later,

viz., on 09.11.2011 from the supplemental list, not the original list. The seniority

list was rightly drawn as per the Proviso to Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which allows seniority to

be based on date of appointment when candidates are drawn from a reserve list.

Though the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3767 of 2010

dated 28.09.2021, emphasized merit, it did not overrule the principle that the date

of regular appointment remains a valid basis for assigning seniority when

appointments are made in different phases.

17. Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No. 3767 of 2010 dated 28.09.2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited

the decision relied on by the appellant therein (Shitla Prasad Shukla Vs. State of

U.P. & Ors) wherein at Paragraph No.10, it is held as follows:-

“10..... The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue. On principle the appellant cannot therefore succeed. What is more in matters of seniority that court does not exercise jurisdiction akin to appellate jurisdiction against the determination by the competent authority, so long as the competent authority has acted bonafide and acted on principles of fairness and fair play. In a matter where there is no rule or regulation governing the situation or where there is one, but is not violated, the Court will not overturn the determination unless it would be unfair not to do so...”

18. Further, in the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred

supra at Paragraph no.12, referred the Judgment in Ganga Vishan Gujrati and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors reported in 2(2019) 16 SCC 28,

“41..... A consistent line of precedent of this Court follows the principle that retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne on a cadre. Seniority amongst members of the same grade has to be counted from the date of initial entry into the grade This principle emerges from the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II engineering Officers' Association V State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715. The principle was reiterated by this Court in State of Bihar Vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath (2007) 1 SCC 683 and State of Uttaranchal Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma [2007] 1 SCC 683.

19. In view of all the above, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioner was validly appointed, but from the reserve list, and his placement in

the seniority list reflects his actual date of entry into service, which is consistent

with service jurisprudence, including statutory provisions and judicial

precedents. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

29.04.2025

Index:Yes / No;Internet: Yes/no Speaking / non speaking order ssd To

1. The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, rep. By its Secretary,TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003

2. The State of Tamilnadu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:11:48 pm )

rep. By the Principal Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009