Madras High Court
M.K.Saravanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 November, 2025
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.28615 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 24.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.28615 of 2025 and
W.M.P Nos.32056 & 32057 of 2025
1.M.K.Saravanan
2.G.Sudha
3.P.Kohila Devi
4.S.Muthukumaran
5.G.Seetharaman
6.S.SelvaseelanRamachandran
7.L.Nirmala
8.B.Swarnalatha
9.A.Kasthuri .. Petitioners
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
W.P.No.28615 of 2025
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government
Human Resources Management Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Member Secretary,
TNPSC Road, Wall Tax Road,
Park Town, Chennai Tamil Nadu 600003.
4.The Director of Medical and
Rural Health Services
Chennai 600 006.
5.A.Uma
Office Superintendent,
O/o. Commissioner of Indian Medicine
and Homeopathy,
Chennai.
6.S.Margaret,
Office Superintendent,
O/o. The Director of Medical and
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
W.P.No.28615 of 2025
Rural Health Services (ESI),
Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 054. .. Respondents
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
th
the 4 respondent in Na.Ka.No.30488/E2/Seniority 2017-1 dated 04.07.2025
and consequential proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 30488/E2/Seniority 2017-II
dated 04.07.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents herein to redraw the seniority list in the post of Assistant and
Office Superintendent strictly in accordance with the seniority list published
by the Public Service Commission in Lr. No. 2706/PSC/2017 dated
22.02.2017 in the post of Junior Assistant and consequently affect
promotions to the post of Junior Administrative Officer based on the
redrawn list.
For Petitioners : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Counsel
for Mrs. S.Suneetha
For R1, R2 & R4 : Mrs.M.Sneha,
Special Counsel for Health Department
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the seniority list dated
04.07.2025 and consequential proceedings dated 04.07.2025, on the file of
the fourth respondent, thereby issuing seniority list in the post of Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
and Office Superintendent.
2.The petitioners had applied for the post of Junior Assistant-cum-
Typist as per the notification issued by the third respondent during the year
1998-99. They were selected and allotted to the Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department during the year 2000. However, they were not
issued allotment order on the ground of lack of vacancies. Therefore, the
petitioner have been made to wait for reallocation. Thereafter, they were
allotted to Medical and Rural Health Services Department and joined the
services in the month of June 2001. About 140 candidates were already
allotted to the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and 75
petitioners were re-allotted to the Medical and Rural Health Services
Department. Similarly placed persons like the petitioners approached this
Court for fixation of their seniority amongst the common batch who were
selected in the very same notification. As per the Service Rule, the rank in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
the examination alone is the criteria for seniority and not the date of joining.
In the meantime, those who were appointed earlier got promoted to the post
of Assistants. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they were promoted
by including them in the panel year 2004 -2005 i.e., after completion of their
probation period. Therefore, the petitioners repeatedly submitted
representations to revise their seniority on par with their batchmates.
Pending representations, the persons who got promoted to the post of
Assistants once again got promoted to the post of Office Superintendents.
However, the petitioners were included in the said panel only in the year
2016-17. Subsequently, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
the third respondent revised the seniority by proceedings dated 22.02.2017
based on the rank issued and merits. Accordingly, the petitioners were
rightly fitted in the seniority list as per their rank and merits. But the fourth
respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 04.07.2025, revised the
seniority list and placed the petitioners below the persons who were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
appointed earlier to the petitioners.
3.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently
contended that inasmuch as it is settled law under Section 40 (1) of Tamil
Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 that even if a
senior has been appointed belatedly to the post, for the purpose of seniority,
the senior is deemed to have joined on the date when the juniors have joined
the said post. Therefore, though the petitioners were promoted in the year
2004-05, their seniors and their juniors were promoted during the year 2003-
04 and the seniority shall be fixed as per their rank and merits. The learned
Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sadhana Singh Dangi and others Vs.Pinki Asati and others reported in
(2022) 12 SCC 401 and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as
follows:
26.We now turn to the issue presented by
Mr. Rungta, learned Senior Advocate, for our
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
consideration. It is quite clear that the candidates
represented by Mr. Rungta were placed at a higher
position in the select list but unfortunately they
were not given appointments along with the
candidates who were at a lower level. These
candidates cannot be held responsible for the
anomaly which has arisen as a result of their late
appointments. In order to do complete justice, we,
therefore, direct:
26.1.All candidates who were at higher
positions in merit but were appointed later shall
be deemed to have been appointed on the earliest
of the dates when their juniors or candidates at
lower levels were appointed.
26.2.Their seniority shall be reckoned from
such deemed date of appointment and not from
their actual date of appointments.
26.3.The issue of probation for all
categories of candidates shall be considered
together as one single batch and the issue of
probation shall not be segregated amongst the
members of the batch.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
26.4. All such candidates who were at
higher levels of the revised list shall be entitled to
their salaries and emoluments for the period of
about seven months for which they were deprived
of service.
4.On perusal of the counter filed by the fourth respondent and also the
submissions made by the learned Special Counsel for the respondents, it is
seen that the third respondent allotted 148 Junior Assistant-cum-Typist to the
Directorate of Medical and Rural Services in the first batch for the estimate
of vacancy for the year 1998-99 and allotted to the fourth respondent
department during the year 2000. The third respondent fixed the seniority to
the said 148 Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and subsequently, panel particulars
for the post of Assistant was called for from the eligible Junior
Assistant/Typist/Steno Typist Grade III for the panel year 2003-04. The
eligibility for the post of Assistant is that service should be regularized,
probation should be declared, Departmental Tests, namely, Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
Medical Code and Account Test for subordinate officers Part – I should be
cleared. Therefore, they were promoted to the post of Assistant. Insofar as
the petitioners and others are concerned, they did not complete their
probationary period at the time of promotion of 148 Junior Assistants. The
petitioners and others were surrendered by the unit Officers of various
department due to non availability of vacancies and these surrendered
candidates were also re-allotted to the Medical and Rural Health Services
Department for the estimate of vacancies for the year 2000-01 by the third
respondent. Therefore, their probation period was completed in the year
2003 – 04 and they are not qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant
since the crucial date to include them in the panel was 15.03.2003. As per
the guidelines issued by the Government, their placement in the Assistant
Panels (panel year from 2003-2004 to 2012-2013) and Office Superintendent
Panels (2015-2016 to 2016-2017) requires revision to process further
promotion panels. Therefore, the placement of the candidates pertaining to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
1998-99 batch in the Assistant panels for the panel years 2003-2004 to 2005-
2006 was published.
5.The above contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason
that the petitioners and others who were promoted to the post of Assistant
were selected in the very same notification for the post of Junior Assistant-
cum-Typist. Due to lack of vacancies, petitioners and others had to wait for
the order of the re-allocation. Thereafter, they were allotted to the Medical
and Rural Health Services Department in the month of June 2001. Even
before the completion of their probation period, others who were already
allotted in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department were
promoted to the post of Assistant. Therefore, the third respondent fixed the
seniority list by placing the petitioners in the right position on the basis of
their rank and merits.
6.Therefore, the fourth respondent ought to have followed the
proceedings dated 22.02.2017 of the third respondent to draft the seniority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
list by containing the 2000-01 candidates. Accordingly, the seniority list and
the communal list cannot be sustained and it is quashed. The fourth
respondent is directed to revise the seniority list in the post of Assistant and
Office Superintendent as per the seniority list published by the third
respondent dated 22.02.2017 for the post of Junior Assistant and effect
future promotion on the basis of the revised seniority list.
7.With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
sli 27.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government
Human Resources Management Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Member Secretary,
TNPSC Road, Wall Tax Road,
Park Town, Chennai Tamil Nadu 600003.
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
sli
4.The Director of Medical and
Rural Health Services
Chennai 600 006.
5.A.Uma
Office Superintendent,
O/o. Commissioner of Indian Medicine
and Homeopathy,
Chennai.
6.S.Margaret,
Office Superintendent,
O/o. The Director of Medical and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
Rural Health Services (ESI),
Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 054.
Pre-Delivery Order in
27.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:29 pm )
