S.S.SUNDAR, J., (1)The private respondents in WP.No.23342/2019 have filed the above writ appeals as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2022 allowing the writ petition filed by the Assistants in the Registration Department, who were directly recruited in the year 2012 pursuant to the recruitment process which commenced in the year 2010.

(2)Respondents 3, 6, 10, 19 to 21 in the writ petition have preferred the writ appeal in WA.No.1027/2022 and respondents 14, 16 and 22 in the writ petition have preferred the writ appeal in WA.No.2308/2022.

(3)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:-

(d) As stated earlier, respondents 1 to 10 herein who are writ petitioners, 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 were appointed by way of direct recruitment through TNPSC as Assistants in the vacancies arising upto 2010. However, after the recruitment process, appointment orders were issued on 18.12.2012.

They also commenced their probation from 18.12.2012 in the post of Assistant. On 28.08.2012, the 6th appellant in WA.No.1027/2022 by name V.A.Raja, was regularised in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 28.08.2012 and commenced his probation in the post of Junior Assistant. On 21.11.2012, the appellants were directed to go for Bhavani Sagar Training Programme from 14.12.2012 to 11.02.2013 upon regularisation in the cadre of Junior Assistant. On 01.07.2013 vide G.O.[3D] No.7, the probation of the appellants were declared in the post of Junior Assistant. On 06.01.2014, further proceedings were issued by appointing the appellants as Assistants [nearly two years after the appointment of writ petitioners as Assistants]. On 07.11.2014, proceedings were issued regularising services of appellants in the post of Assistants with effect from 10.01.2014 as their services were treated as on 'ad hoc' basis till then.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Originally, a seniority list for the post of Assistant, was published on 07.06.2016 and on 02.02.2018, whereby the writ petitioners who were direct recruitees in the post of Assistants, were placed below the appellants herein who were originally appointed on ad-hoc basis in the post of Junior Assistant and who were promoted to the post of Assistant only in the year 2014. Therefore, the writ petitioners who were recruited directly in the post of Assistant in the year 2012, and placed below the appellants in the seniority list, filed WP.No.23342/2019 for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2016 and the consequential seniority list dated 02.02.2018 insofar as the placement of writ petitioners in the seniority list below the 1st appellant herein and others and to direct the official respondents, namely, respondents 11 and 12 herein to treat the writ petitioners as seniors to the appellants and others of the same class and to direct the official respondents to issue orders of promotion to the writ petitioners to the post of Sub Registrar Grade II.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

(e) The writ petition was contested by the appellants herein on various grounds. The learned Single Judge of this Court extensively considered the pleadings and arguments of the writ petitioners as well as the contesting respondents/appellants herein and rejected the contentions of the appellants herein. The contention of the appellants by referring to the retrospective promotion to the post of Assistant was rejected by the learned Single Judge, as the appellants cannot claim themselves as being appointed regularly in the post of Assistant, affecting the seniority of the writ petitioners. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Sreenivasa Reddy and Others Vs. Government of A.P. and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.6575 to 6580/1994 dated 05.10.1994, the learned Single Judge held that the appellants who are temporary appointees though regularised at certain point of time, may count their earlier services for other benefits, but their retrospective regularisation, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of their seniority as against the regular appointees like the writ petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

(f) Similarly, yet another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P.Palanisamy and Others Vs. A.Krishnan and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.3582 to 3582/2009 was also relied upon by the learned Single Judge to reiterate the principle that regular Assistants who were directly recruited through TNPSC, cannot be superseded by compassionate ground Assistants appointed temporarily even if they are appointed earlier to the direct recruitees.

(g) The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and held that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief and held that the impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2016 and the consequential seniority list dated 02.02.2018 are liable to be set aside. A further direction was also issued as prayed for in favour of the writ petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2022 allowing the writ petitions, the above appeals have been preferred.

(4)Originally, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, was shown in the writ 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 petition as one representing the class of promotee Assistants who have been notionally promoted as Assistants with effect from 11.06.2010 and shown in the seniority list of Assistants dated 02.02.2018 from Sl.Nos.113 onwards. Subsequently, the appellants got themselves impleaded as respondents 4 to 22 during the pendency of the writ petitions. The private respondents who got themselves impleaded in the writ petition later, filed the above writ appeals.

(5)The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following grounds:-

vi. Since the appellants were regularized in the post of Assistant with retrospective effect, the official respondents have considered them as senior to the writ petitioners having regard to the fact that they have been recruited in the post of Junior Assistant even in the year 2007 and the delay in declaring their probation and notional promotion, cannot be a factor which would enable the writ petitioners to march over the appellants.

vii.Learned counsels also submitted that the appellants would be put to serious prejudice if they are brought down in the seniority list below the writ petitioners without considering their meritorious service in the Registration Department from the year 2007.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 (6)Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners reiterated the points canvassed by him before the learned Single Judge and relied upon a few precedents to strengthen the views of learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition.

(7)To appreciate the arguments that are advanced, this Court is inclined to summarise the following facts which are not in issue:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 F) Rule 39[e] which reads as follows:-

H) Following G.O.Ms.No.47 dated 09.04.2010, the Government based on the proposal submitted by the Inspector General of Registration, granted exemption for filling up the vacancies for the post of Assistant by direct recruitment through TNPSC since the service rules had not been amended. Thereafter, TNPSC issued recruitment notification for the post of Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service including 320 posts of Assistants in the Registration Department. Vide G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 17.04.2012, the Government issued amendments to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service to fill up 50% of the vacancies in the post of Assistant by direct recruitment. While approving the amendment, the Government has also stated in the said Government Order that the inter-se seniority between the directly recruited Assistants and the Assistants appointed by promotion, 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 shall be as per the provisions laid down in Rule 35[aa] of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services.

It was also stated that a directly recruited Assistant shall be eligible for promotion to any selection category post provided he has successfully completed his probation and has also passed the prescribed tests. It is admitted that the writ petitioners have passed the prescribed tests. Therefore, the writ petitioners are entitled to count the seniority from the date of their appointment as Assistants, i.e., 18.12.2012, when none of the appellants had born in the post of 'Assistant'.

I) As stated earlier, the 6th appellant in WA.No.1027/2022 by name V.A.Raja, was regularised in the post of Junior Assistant vide G.O.[2D] No.141 dated 20.07.2012 with effect from the date of joining the service, i.e., 15.03.2007. However, the regularization is also subject to completion of Bhavanisagar Training as required under Rule 34[a]. By proceedings dated 21.11.2012, the appellants were directed to undergo Bhavanisagar Training and 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 were directed to be relieved so that they would be able to report for training on 13.12.2012. It was at that time, the writ petitioners were selected and by proceedings dated 18.12.2012, they were appointed in the post of Assistant subject to usual conditions. It is not in dispute that the probation of the writ petitioners was declared in due course. By proceedings dated 01.07.2013, vide G.O.[3D] No.7, the probation of 13 of Junior Assistants who were originally appointed on temporary basis in the year 2007, was declared on completion of Bhavanisagar Training on 11.02.2013.

By proceedings dated 06.01.2014 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, the Junior Assistants who were appointed in the year 2007 on compassionate ground, were appointed as Assistants in the respective Revenue Districts. A further direction was also issued by the Inspector General of Registration to issue appointment orders after relieving the concerned individuals.

J) By proceedings dated 21.10.2013, the appointment of writ 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 petitioners in the post of Assistants was regularised and thereafter, vide proceedings dated 18.03.2016, the probation of the writ petitioners was declared in the post of Assistant. However, vide impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2016, the seniority list was released wherein the writ petitioners were shown as juniors to the appellants herein in the post of Assistant.

(8)On the admitted facts and events above referred to, it cannot be disputed that the writ petitioners were selected on 28.08.2012 as Assistants and appointed vide proceedings dated 18.12.2012. On completion of probation, the writ petitioners are deemed to be in service on regular basis with effect from 18.12.2012. It is also not in dispute that the appellants were appointed in the post of Assisstant only on 06.01.2014 and their services in the post of Assistant was regularised with effect from 10.01.2014. Only from the proceedings dated 20.03.2017, it is seen that seniority of the 6th appellant herein in WA.No.1027/2022 by name V.A.Raja, was fixed on the basis of a representation submitted by him after he was regularized in the post of Assistant. Even though it is 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 referred to in the said communication dated 20.03.2017 that Thiru.V.A.Raja was appointed in the post of Assistant as per proceedings dated 24.12.2013, it is admitted that all the Junior Assistants who were given retrospective promotion, were appointed only in the year 2014 in the post of Assistant.

(9)Since the actual date of appointment of the appellants to the post of Assistant was on 06.01.2014 and their services in the post of Assistant was regularised with effect from 10.01.2014, the question is whether the appellants who were actually appointed on a later date, can march over or claim seniority above the writ petitioners, who were appointed as Assistants on 18.12.2012?

(10)We have already referred to Rule 35[aa] of TNSSS Rules which mandates that the seniority of person in service, class, category or grade in the case of service, where the normal method of recruitment to such service is by more than one method of recruitment, is determined with reference to the date on which he is appointed to the service, class, category or grade. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the writ 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 petitioners were appointed by direct recruitment. The minimum educational qualification is a degree and the Assistants who were appoitned by direct recruitment is a class or category by itself. As far as the appellants are concerned, though they were appointed on temporary basis under Rule 10[a][i] in the year 2007, completed their probation much later and appointed in the post of Assistant in 2014 much after the appointment of writ petitioners have been maliciously placed above writ petitioners.

(11)Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [1] K.Madalaimuthu and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [AIR 2006 SC 2662 : 2006 [6] SCC 558] ; and [2] M.P.Palanisamy and Others Vs. A.Krishnan and Others [AIR 2009 SC 2809 : 2009 [6] SCC 428].

(12)In K.Meghachandra Singh and Others Vs. Ningm Siro and Others [2020 [5] SCC 689], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue relating to inter-se seniority with reference to Manipur Police Service 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Grade II officers. While referring to similar Rules as in the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person is not entitled to claim seniority from the date he was not borne in the service in the cadre. The said judgment has a direct bearing on the present case where the appellants herein are claiming seniority above the direct recruitees on the basis of some proceedings where their promotion was notionally treated to give retrospective effect.

(13)When the appellants were promoted with retrospective effect in 2014, they were not in service in the post of Assistant. In other words, the appellants were appointed in the post of Assistant only in January 2014 as it was admitted before this Court. In such circumstances, their retrospective promotion based on extraneous reasons,cannot be considered to recognize them in the post of Assistant even before the date on which they were appointed to the post to physically serve.

(14)Similar view can be inferred from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Sundhakar Rao and Others Vs. U.Govinda Rao and Others [2013 [8] SCC 693].

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 (15)Even earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldeo Prasad and Others Vs. Adhuri Sachindra Nath and Others [1999 Supp.[1] SCC 334], has held as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 (19)CMP.No.5738/2023 in WA.No.2308/2022 is filed by the petitioner seeking to implead himself in the said writ appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he is also one of the Assistants who has been recruited through TNPSC for the vacancies of the year 2009-10. It is further stated that he was issued with the order of appointment on 29.12.2012. Even though he states that he is similarly placed to that of writ petitioners, the benefit of the order cannot be given at the appellate stage. Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an independent writ petition to claim seniority over the appellants herein, the miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.

29.04.2025 AP Index : Yes Internet : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 To

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Inspector General of Registration O/o.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 S.S. SUNDAR, J., and C.SARAVANAN, J., AP Judgment in WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 29.04.2025 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 04.03.2025 Pronounced on 29.04.2025 CORAM :

For Appellants in W.A.No.2308 of 2022 : Mr.M.Ravi For Appellants in W.A.No.1027 of 2022 : Mr.A.Palaniappan 37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 For Respondents – 1, 2, 9, 10 & 30 to 51 in W.A.No.2308 of 2022 and For Respondents – 1, 2, 8, 9 & 10 in W.A.No.1027 of 2022 : Mr.V.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.) For the sake of convenience, this Order is segmented as under various headings:-

1. Discussion on the factual background of the present case

2. Discussion on the relevant provisions i. Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules(TNRSSR) ii. Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (TNSSSR) iii. Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules (TNMSR) 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 S.No. Heading Pg.No.

3. Discussion on the Precedents

4. Conclusion 5 Summary of the Decision

1. INTRODUCTION:-

2. I have had the benefit of reading the views expressed by my esteemed brother the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.S.SUNDAR while finalizing the Order. I am however unable to subscribe to the views expressed by my esteemed brother the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.S.SUNDAR. Under these circumstances, I have authored this separate order.

3. This Intra Court Appeal is directed by the Private Respondents in the Writ Petition against the Order dated 03.03.2022 of the Writ Court in W.P. No. 23342 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’).

4. In my view, the Order of the Writ Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Private Respondents 1 to 10 (Direct Recruitees) is erroneous 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 and has to be therefore set aside. Reasons are many. I have therefore penned this detailed order after examining the crucial facts, the applicable provisions and the case laws. In my view, if there was a more detailed discussion on facts and the laws settled by the Courts, the Writ Court may have allowed the Writ Petition.

5. 1st to 10th Respondents/1st to 10th Writ Petitioners filed the W.P.No.23342 of 2019 for the following relief:-

6. Operative portion of the Impugned Order dated 03.03.2022 of the 40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Writ Court in W.P. No. 23342 of 2019 reads as under:-

07.06.2016 and consequential impugned seniority list bearing Ref.No.18/nf1/2018, dated 02.02.2018 are hereby set aside.

88. The official respondents are directed to prepare a fresh seniority list and assign proper seniority as between the petitioners and the private respondents herein in terms of the above ruling of this Court.

89. The official respondents are also directed to comply with the above direction within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

90. With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

7. Relevant portion of the Proceedings bearing No.21380/nf1/2016 dated 07.06.2016 of the 12th Respondent impugned in the above Writ Petition is extracted hereunder:-

(1/10/2013) KJepiy t/vz;/ 3/gzptud; Kiw/ 4/Xa;t[ bgWk; ehs;

4. ,t;thW j';fs; khtl;lj;jpYs;s cjtpahsh;fs;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 midthplKk; gl;oay; Rw;Wf;F mDg;gg;gl;L mth;fspd; xg;g[jy; bgwg;gl;lJ vd;Wk;. gl;oaypy; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;s tptu';fs; rhpahf cs;sd/ tply;fs; Vjkpy;iy vd;gjw;fhd rhd;wpid khtl;lg;gjpthsh;fs;.

Jidgjpt[j;Jiwj; jiyth;fSf;F 30/06/2016f;Fs; mDg;g ntz;Lk;/ Jizgjpt[j;Jiwj; jiyth;fs;

khtl;lg; gjpthsh;fspd; rhd;Wfis xU';fpizj;J jk; mYtyf tptu';fSf;fhd rhd;wpiza[k; nrh;j;J ,Wjp mwpf;ifapid 15/07/2010f;Fs; ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F kpd;d";ry; KPyk; mDg;g ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ 5/,g;gl;oaypy; tply;fs;-ePff ; g;gl ntz;oa bgah;fs;

VJkpUg;gpd; rk;ge;jg;gl;l cjtpahsh;fspd; bgah;. epakd Kiw. gjpt[ khtl;lk;. gzptud;Kiw ehs; kw;Wk; Xa;t[ bgWk; ehs; Fwpj;J chpa Mjhu';fSld; tphpthd mwpf;if mDg;gp itf;ft[k; nfhug;gLfpwJ/ gl;oay; bjhlh;ghf nky;KiwaPL VJkpUg;gpd; ,U khj';fSf;Fs; chpa tHp Kiwapy; mDg;gg;gl ntz;Lk;/”

8. English transcript of the impugned Proceedings dated 07.06.2016 of the 12th Respondent is extracted hereunder:-

9. Relevant portion of the 2nd impugned Proceedings dated 44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 02.02.2018 of the 12th Respondent is extracted hereunder:-

3.Thus the list was circulated to all the assistants in their 46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 registration district and their approval was obtained. Also the details given in the list are correct. The certificate regarding incorrect or omissions of details should be sent to the District Registrars, Sub Registrars by 31.03.2018. The Sub Registrars are also requested to collate the certificates of the District Registrars and send the final report to this authority by 15.12.2018 along with the certificate from their office.

4. If there are any names to be omitted/removed from this list, then the Sub-Registrar are requested to send a relevant report bearing details of the concerned Assistant such as method of appointment, registration district, date of duty and date of retirement of the concerned assistants. Any appeal against the list should be forwarded through proper channels within two months.”

11. The details of the Appellants and Private Respondents in the respective Writ Appeals are as under:-

(ii) Respondents 11 & 12 herein (Official Respondents) were Respondents 1 and 2 in the W.P.No.23342 of 2019.

12. In W.A.No. 2308 of 2022 apart from the above mentioned Respondents, Respondent Nos. 31 to 51 were impleaded by this Court vide Order dated 06.03.2023 in C.M.P.No.1784 of 2023 in W.A.No.2308 of 2022. They were the directly recruited ‘Assistants’ similar to the 1 to 10 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Respondents/1 to 10 Writ Petitioners.

13. For the sake of clarity, the Appellants/Private Respondents will be referred to as the ‘Promotees’ and the Private Respondents/Writ Petitioners will be referred to as ‘Direct Recruitees’ hereinafter.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

27. In G.O.(D).No.183, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Department dated 31.05.2010, the 11th Respondent earmarked 50% of the substantive vacancy against the sanctioned posts to the post of ‘Assistant (Non-Technical)’ in the Registration Department to be filled by way of ‘Direct Recruitment’. The text of the aforesaid Government Order has been already extracted in Paragraph No. 59 of the Impugned Order which has been extracted in Part IV of this Order.

28. As a sequitter to G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010, the Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010 was issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service 55 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Commission to fill up 320 substantive vacancies to the post of ‘Assistant’ by way of Direct Recruitment and fixed the date of Written Examination as 12.06.2011.

29. Thus, Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.10.2010 was issued for direct recruitment by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), wherein, applications were invited until 5.45 P.M on 11.02.2011 for various posts mentioned therein along with the requisite qualification for the respective posts in the light of G.O.Ms.No.47, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Department, dated 09.04.2010 and G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010. The aforesaid Recruitment Notification also included the post of ‘Assistants’ in the Registration Department.

30. The aforesaid Recruitment Notification was in respect of two categories involving two successive stages for selection i.e., Written 56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Examination and Oral Test and those only by Written Examination. As far as the 320 seats to the post of ‘Assistants’ in the Registration Department i.e., under the 12th Respondent pursuant to the above mentioned Government Orders are concerned, they were under the 2nd category i.e., post for which selection was to be made only by Written Examination under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

31. It has be noted that G.O.(D). No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 was issued in partial deviation of G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010.

32. As mentioned above, G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 and Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.10.2010 issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010 was without any amendment to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules 57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 for apportioning vacancies to be filled by way of direct recruitment to the post of ‘Assistants’ in the Registration Department, despite the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to suitably amend the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules which was noted in G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010.

33. In G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010, the Government merely decided to grant one time exemption for filling up of the vacancies to the post of ‘Assistant’ by ‘Direct Recruitment’ through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). This was ostensibly in consonance with the approval of the Staff Committee as per the instructions issued vide Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.123 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 10.09.2009.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

34. G.O.(D). No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 is said to have been issued with the approval of the State Committee as per the instructions in G.O.(Ms).No.123 P & AR Department dated 10.09.2009. The text of G.O.(Ms).No.123 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 10.09.2009 is extracted hereunder:-

gzpahsh; FGtpd; xg;gj[ y; bgwg;gl;L muryh; Mid tH';fg;gl;l 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 gpd;dnu epakd';fs; bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk;/ bjhFjp A 10 fhypg; gzpapl';fSf;F nkw;gl;l ,d';fs; (my;yJ) Mz;Lf;F UP/50 ,yl;rj;jpw;F nkw;gl;l bjhlh; brytpdk;

(Combined Recruitment) xU';fpizg;g[ gzp epakdk; bra;af;

fUJk; epakd';fspy; bjhlh; brytpdk;

Mz;Lf;F UP/60 ,yl;rj;jpw;F nkw;gLk;

3/muR epakd mjpfhhpahf ,Uf;Fk; gjtpfSf;fhd gjtp cah;t[/gzp khWjy; fhypapl kjpg;gPl;oid eph;zak; bra;a gzpahsh; kw;Wk; eph;thfr; rPhj; pUj;jj; Jiw kw;Wk; epjpj; Jiwapd; xg;gj[ y; bgwg;gl;L fhypapl kjpg;gPL eph;zak; bra;a ntz;Lk;/ gzpahsh; FGtpd; xg;g[jy; bgwj; njitapy;iy/”

35. Meanwhile, G.O.Ms.No. 56 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 17.04.2012 amended Category 12 in Rule 60 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 2 in Section 22 of Vol III - Tamil Nadu Service Manual viz., Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules by adding ‘Annexure IX-C - Appointment, training and conditions of service of directly recruited Assistants (Non Technical) in the Registration Department’ in Rule 38, in Sub-Rule (b), in Clause (ii), after Item No.3, Annexure IX-B of the aforesaid Rules.

36. The amendment to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules (cited supra) vide G.O.(Ms).No.56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012 is extracted hereunder:-

8(a).Every person appointed as Assistant by direct recruitment shall be imparted training for a total period of two years as specified below:-

Administrative Training at the office of the Inspector General of Registration/Deputy 2 Next three months Inspector General of Registration/District Registrar (Administration) Audi Training at the Office of the District 3 Next two months Registrar (Audit) 4 Next two months Guideline, Chit & Society at the office of the 62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Sl.No Period Item of Training District Registrar (Administration) Foundation Training at Civil Services Training 5 Next two months Institute, Bhavanisagar.

6 Next one year Training in Sub-Registrar Offices

(b).Every person appointed to the post of Assistant by direct recruitment, shall within the period of probation, pass the following tests, namely:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

38. Meanwhile, by Proceedings bearing reference No.56266/K2/2012 dated 21.11.2012, the 12th Respondent addressed a Communication for sending Batch No.185 consisting of 25 Junior Assistants for training to Bhavani Sagar Training Institute between 14.12.2012 to 11.02.2013.

39. Among the 25 Junior Assistants, the 1st Appellant/14th Respondent in W.A.No.2308 of 2022 namely, Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah and the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent namely, Mr.N.V.Raja in W.A. No.1027 of 2022 were sent for training to Bhavani Sagar Training Institute pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings of the 12th Respondent dated 21.11.2012 bearing Reference No.56266/K2/2012. However, details of the rest of the Promotees who were appointed as ‘Junior Assistants’ in the year 2007 on various dates on Compassionate Grounds was neither called for nor disclosed nor elicited by the Writ Court while passing the Impugned Order. The Writ Court has 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 assumed few facts and has proceeded to disturb the seniority of even those 96 Promotees who were promoted on 24.11.2012 i.e., even prior to appointment of the Direct Recruitees as 'Assistants' on 18.12.2012.

40. The probation of the 13 persons who were sent for training at the Bhavani Sagar Batch No.185 by the District Registrar by the aforesaid proceedings was declared only on 01.07.2013 vide G.O.(3D).No.7 Commercial Tax and Registration (K) Department dated 01.07.2013.

41. The probation of the 1st Appellant/14th Respondent in W.A.No.2308 of 2022 namely, Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah and the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent namely, Mr.V.A..Raja in W.A. No.1027 of 2022 as ‘Junior Assistants’ were declared on 01.07.2013 along with 11 others.

This was admittedly after appointment of the Direct Recruitees on 18.12.2012. They were also promoted as 'Assistants' thereafter i.e after appointment of the Direct Recruitees on 18.12.2012.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

42. The 6th Appellant/21st Respondent in W.A.No.1027 of 2022 namely Mr.V.A.Raja was promoted on 06.01.2014 by the 12th Respondent as an ‘Assistant’ along with 117 persons vide Proceedings bearing C.No.16714/K1/2013 dated 06.01.2014. Details of the 117 persons are in Annexure 3 to the aforesaid proceedings. The text of the above Proceedings dated 06.01.2024 reads as under:-

43. Among 117 persons included some of who were appointed on 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 compassionate grounds as “Junior Assistants” and others as “Typists”.

The aforesaid proceedings of the 12th Respondents also disclosed their respective seniority among the ‘Assistants’ in the Registration Department.

44. The Writ Court should have ascertained as to how many of the 'Junior Assistants' were appointed on compassionate grounds and were promoted as 'Assistants' vide Proceedings bearing C.No.16714/K1/2013 dated 06.01.2014.

45. Pursuant to the above, the services of the Promotees as ‘Assistants’ who were promoted to the post of ‘Assistants’ from the post of ‘Junior Assistants’ were regularized on various dates from the year 2014.

46. The services of the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent in W.A.No.1027 of 2022 namely Mr.V.A.Raja as an ‘Assistant’ was later 67 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 regularised vide Order dated 17.11.2014 by the 12th Respondent. The services of the 1st Appellant/14th Respondent in W.A.No.2308 of 2022 namely, Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah, as an ‘Assistant’ was regularized by the 12th Respondent from the date of 10.01.2014 vide Proceedings bearing C.No.5119/A1/2010 dated 18.11.2014.

47. Details of the other Promotees are not clearly disclosed in the Order. As mentioned above in Paragraph No.5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition by the Direct Recruitees, the details of the actual date of appointment and the retrospective seniority given to Promotees has been tabulated. I have summarized Paragraph No. 5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition later in this Order.

48. Accordingly, the Registrar/Head of the Department of Sub Registration Department of the concerned Districts were requested to make a relevant note regarding their appointment in the Register of Assistants and to inform the details thereof.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

49. Meanwhile, the probation for about 129 Direct Recruitees out of 320 Direct Recruitees were declared on 18.03.2016 who were recruited/appointed in the year 2012 on 18.12.2012 and 23.12.2012 as ‘Assistants’ directly pursuant to the aforesaid Government Orders and Recruitment Notification on the dates mentioned in Column No.5 to the Annexure in the aforesaid Notification of the Registrar were declared on 18.03.2016.

50. The 6th Appellant/21st Respondent in W.A.No.1027 of 2022 was rightly conferred promotion along with 96 of his other contemporaries who were earlier promoted as 'Assistants' with effect from 24.11.2012 and whose names were included in the seniority list for the Panel Year 2012- 2013. If these Promotees were entitled to the promoted with retrospective dates, the Direct Recruitees who were appointed on 18.12.2012 and 23.12.2012 cannot have any legitimate grievance as there is no vested right to claim seniority without the Direct Recruitees actually possessing requisite 69 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 qualification under the Rule prior to preparation Seniority List for the Panel Year 2011-2012 and Panel Year 2012-2013 or during subsequent panel years.

51. A reading of the above Order and considering the fact that the name of a person junior to the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent were included in the Seniority/Selection List for promotion to the post of ‘Assistant’ for the Panel Year 2011-2012, indicates that though the said 6th Appellant/21st Respondent in W.A.No.1027 of 2022 was fully qualified to be promoted to the post of ‘Assistant’ during the Year 2011-2012, his name was not included earlier in the Seniority List for the Panel Year 2011-2012. He was not promoted for no fault. The delay in regularizing his services as a ‘Junior Assistants’ was not attributable to the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent in W.A.1027 of 2022.

52. The delay in sending the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent and other Promotees for training by the Official Respondents cannot be their 70 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 disadvantage if they had requisite qualification for regularizing their service as 'Junior Assistants' and for being promoted prior to the appointment of the Direct Recruitees of the Private Respondent on 18.12.2012/23.11.2012.

53. Therefore, the name of the the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent be included in the Seniority/Selection List at S.No.11(a) behind one Mr. M.Elango at S.No.11 and before S.No.12 namely, Mr.A.Kumaraguru in the list by fixing the date of notional Promotion as 24.11.2011 vide Proceedings dated 20.03.2017.

54. Further, in Paragraph No.6 of the aforesaid order, it was ordered that based on the above declaration, the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent should be paid the salary as stated in the Proceedings dated 20.03.2017.

Consequently, the Registrar was directed to make suitable changes.

55. Pursuant to the aforesaid Proceedings dated 20.03.2017, the 12th 71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Respondent prepared a consolidated revised Seniority List vide Proceedings dated 02.02.2018 for the promotion of serving ‘Assistants’ to the post of ‘Sub Registrar Grade – II’ from the post of ‘Assistants’ under Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules.

56. Strangely, only after the above revised Seniority List was prepared, vide Proceedings dated 02.02.2018 of the 12th Respondent, Writ Petition was filed, even though the mere inclusion in the seniority list ipso facto does not result in automatic promotion to the next higher post. The names in the Seniority list will have to be based on the date of qualification which an employee possess as per Rules 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules which the Writ Court failed to address.

57. In the consolidated list, all the persons who were appointed as ‘Junior Assistants’ in the year 2007 and had obtained the necessary qualification were placed above the Private Respondents (Direct Recruitees) who were appointed on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 whose probation were 72 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 declared on 18.03.2016.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSELS FOR APPELLANTS (PROMOTEES) IN THESE WRIT APPEALS:-

58. Mr.A.Palaniappan and Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsels for the Appellants in the respective Writ Appeals contended that the impugned Order of the Writ Court is unsustainable and is therefore liable to be interfered with, as the seniority given to the Appellants (Promotees) who were appointed much earlier to the Private Respondents (Direct Recruits) has been ordered to be downgraded by virtue of the Impugned Order of the Writ Court.

59. The learned Counsels for the Promotees submits that the appointment of the Appellants (Promotees) as ‘Junior Assistants’ on compassionate grounds is an appointment approved by virtue of the policy of the Government and the Statutory Rules and that as such the appointment of Appellants by way of ‘Direct Recruitment’ on compassionate grounds to the post of ‘Junior Assistant’ in the year 2007 is neither a back door entry 73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 appointment or unapproved ad-hoc appointment, de-hors the Rules.

60. It is submitted by the Counsels for the Promotees that the Promotees have not marched over the Direct Recruitees in the Seniority List against the posts sanctioned to be filled by way of Direct Recruitment. It is submitted that the Government Orders paving way for direct recruitment to the post of ‘Assistants’ was concerned only on 09.04.2010 and earmarked 50% of the sanctioned vacancies to be filled by way of direct recruitment, thereby making it that more than 320 sanctioned vacancies to be filled by way of Transfer/Promotion from the post of ‘Junior Assistants’. It is stated that these Promotees were eligible to be promoted as ‘Assistants’ even before G.O.Ms.No.47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010.

61. It is submitted by the learned Counsels for the Promotees that the compassionate appointment of the Promotees in the year 2007 was initially made on a temporary basis after verifying the requisite qualifications of the 74 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 candidates only for the limited purpose of awaiting the approval of the Government.

62. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsels for Promotees that the difference between those who were appointed on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, without following the procedure provided under the aforesaid rules and the appointment made on compassionate grounds would be distinctly clear from the text of the aforementioned Government Orders.

63. It is submitted that Section 18, 3(2) and 20 of the 2016 Act, [Formerly, Rule 10A, Rule 2(14) and Rule 12(bb) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, would make it clear that appointment on compassionate grounds is statutorily approved appointment that falls under the method of ‘Direct Recruitment’.

64. It is submitted by the Promotees that the scheme of compassionate 75 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 appointment is approved by the Statutory Rules i.e., the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules and that the aforesaid legal position of compassionate appointment being an approved method of appointment has not been considered by the Writ Court. It is submitted that it cannot be contended that compassionate appointment is an unapproved appointment, dehors the Rules.

65. In this context, it is therefore stated that only in such cases of temporary appointments to the posts that are not exempted from the purview of TNPSC, contention that such temporary services till the date of regular appointment shall not be taken for the purposes of seniority could be raised.

It further submitted that in the present case, the initial appointment of the Promotees was made on compassionate grounds which are exempted from the purview of the TNPSC or by resorting to appointment through employment exchange and further with requisite qualification against the sanctioned posts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

66. It is further submitted by the learned Counsels for Promotees that the power to relax the Rules conferred under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules were invoked by the Government only for the purpose of relaxing the relevant Rules for declaration of completion of probation of the Promotees as Junior Assistants with effect from the date of their initial appointment owing to the administrative delay in regularising the services of the Promotees.

67. It is submitted by the counsels for Appellants (Promotees) that in accordance with proviso to Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the Appellants (Promotees) are deemed to have joined as ‘Assistants’ as on the date of promotion of their juniors by the same method of recruitment for the purpose of fixation of inter-se seniority.

68. While contending the precedents relied on by the Respondents, it is submitted by the Counsels for the Appellants (Promotees) that the judgment in V.Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors 77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 would not apply to the present case, as in the aforesaid case, temporary appointee was appointed in the quota for direct recruitment on a temporary basis and that the appointment was only subsequently made in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, there the Court held that the services rendered by the candidate prior to his appointment in accordance with law cannot be countenanced for seniority.

69. Further, the learned Counsels for the Promotees also distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Madalaimuthu and Ors Vs. State of Tamil Nadu from the facts of the present case stating that there it a clear case of a temporary appointee encroaching upon the vacancy meant for Direct Recruitment and it was held by the Court that the person who was appointed temporarily, cannot be said to be in service till the appointment is regularized which has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

70. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Promotee 78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 that the decision in M.P.Palanisamy and Ors Vs. A.Krishnan , that it was a case of between Direct Recruits PG Assistants and promotee PG Assistants, wherein the Court held that the Promotee PG Assistants appointed on a ‘temporary basis’ and whose services were regularised subsequently cannot supersede the Direct Recruit PG Assistants though the date of appointment of the former is earlier than the latter.

71. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned Counsels for the Appellants (Promotees) that it is a settled principle that no one could be deprived of service benefits on par with their juniors for no fault of theirs, and that the Appellants (Promotees) are deemed to have joined the promotional post of ‘Assistants’ on the respective dates on which their immediate juniors were appointed as ‘Junior Assistants’ by direct recruitment by applying the provisions of Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Hence, it is submitted that the Appellants (Promotees) are rightfully seniors in the inter-se seniority by virtue of their deemed date of joining as ‘Assistant’.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

72. It was therefore submitted by the learned Counsels for the Promotees that in accordance with the settled principles of service jurisprudence that no employee can be deprived of empanelment and promotion on account of any administrative delay in passing necessary orders or for want of service qualification in training, if the lapse is on the part of the Official Respondents and on the part of the delinquents.

73. Therefore, it is stated in the present case, the Promotees were rightly given seniority and promotion on par with the Direct Recruits as the delay in declaring the probation of the Promotees as ‘Junior Assistants’ were on part of the Official Respondents.

74. In this connection, the learned counsels for the Appellants (Promotees) relied on the followings decisions of Courts:-

75. On the other hand, defending the Impugned Order of the Writ Court, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Private Respondents (Direct Recruitees) and the counsel for the Official Respondents that the Impugned Order of the Writ Court is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Therefore, prays for dismissal of these Writ Appeals.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS (DIRECT RECRUITEES/WRIT PETITIONERS) IN THESE WRIT APPEALS:-

76. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Direct Recruitees that they were appointed as ‘Assistants’ on 18.12.2012 by way of direct recruitment by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is stated that 81 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 the actual date of appointment of the Promotees to the post of ‘Assistants’ was only in the year 2014 and that their service in the post of ‘Assistants’ was regularized only with effect from 10.01.2014.

77. It is however submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Direct Recruitees that the Promotees were actually appointed on a later date and that they were allowed to steal a march over the Direct Recruitees in the Seniority List based on the retrospective regularization of service in the post of ‘Junior Assistants’ while their appointment of ‘Assistants’ by way of promotion in itself was only regularized in the year 2014.

78. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Direct Recruitees that since the Promotees were appointed on compassionate grounds, after regularization of service, the Promotees were deputed to the Bhavani Sagar Training Institute and only after the completion of their training the probation of the Promotees were declared. Therefore, it is submitted that the claim of the Promotees that as per Rule 32(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu 82 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Ministerial Service Rules must be declared within 2 years from the date of their initial appointment cannot be countenanced.

79. It is submitted by the counsel for the Direct Recruitees that the appointment of the Promotees in itself are de-hors the rules and ad-hoc in nature as stated in their Appointment Order and that the said Appointment Order in itself is temporary. It is stated that the Promotees could commence their probation only when their services as ‘Junior Assistant’ is regularised.

Therefore, it is submitted that they cannot claim seniority in the post of ‘Assistant’ from the date when the Promotees were not working even on a temporary basis in the said post.

80. It is submitted by the Official Respondents that due to administrative reasons, there was a delay in sending the Promotees for training to Bhavani Sagar Training Institute and their probation could not be 83 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 declared. Therefore, it is submitted by relaxing Rule 34(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules their probation was declared from the date of their initial appointment and was subsequently appointed to the post of ‘Assistants’ as they had cleared all the Departmental Tests and qualified to hold the post of ‘Assistants’ in the year 2010 in itself.

81. It is submitted that the 12th Respondents, based on the representation given by the Promotees and acting well within the service rules restored the seniority of the Promotees in the Seniority List for promotion to the post of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’.

82. It is further submitted by the Official Respondents that the inter se seniority of Promotees and Direct Recruitees are governed by the proviso to Clause (2) to Section 40 of the 2016 Act [formerly, Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules] which states that seniority should be reckoned from the date of appointment. It is therefore stated in accordance with the aforesaid Rule the consolidated Seniority List of the 84 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 ‘Assistants’ for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ was issued by the 12th Respondent.

83. It is submitted by the Official Respondents that the panel for promotion to the post of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ from the year 1997 till date was revised by providing the rule of reservation as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted due to the pendency of these Writ Appeals and issue of inter se seniority between the Promotees and Direct Recruitees, the Official Respondents are unable to fill the vacant posts in the cadre of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ and other higher cadres.

84. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Official Respondents that if the seniority is fixed as directed by the Writ Court and as per the contentions of the Private Respondents, it is stated that it would unsettle the settled position of law leading to multiple litigations and that it would also be contrary to the settled principles of law as laid down by the 85 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Hon’ble Supreme Court.

85. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1 to 10 Respondents/Writ Petitioners relied on the following decisions of the Courts:-

IV.DISCUSSION:-

86. In Paragraph No. 51 and 52 of the Impugned Order, the Writ Court has captured the essence of the dispute before it. For the sake of clarity, Paragraph No. 51 and 52 of the Impugned Order of the Writ Court in W.P.No.22342 of 2019 is captured below:-

87. On the technical objection raised by the Promotees, the Writ Court in the Impugned Order observed as under:-

But, when such relaxation has its adverse and onerous effect on the seniority of the directly recruited petitioners as reflected in the impugned seniority list, all of a sudden, the petitioners rightly felt aggrieved and approached this Court for redressal of their grievance. It cannot be therefore gainsaid that these petitioners, having not chosen to challenge the relaxation orders, cannot be allowed to challenge the consequential seniority list. Such objection on the part of the both official and private respondents, cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts.

88. The above observations and conclusions are flawed as no attempt was made to examine the factual details of the date of appointment/promotion of Promotees and Assistants as in the Table to Paragraph 5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

89. As far as the core issue relating to inter-se seniority between the Promotees and Direct Recruits are concerned, the discussion leading to the above conclusion of the Writ Court in the Impugned Order starts from Paragraph Nos. 57 to 84 which is extracted hereunder for a clearer understanding:-

All the 320 vacancies identified for the year were earmarked for direct recruitment. In order to appreciate the inter se claim of the parties, it is very relevant and useful to refer to 89 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 the contents of the two Government Orders which were the basis of the Commission-s notification issued subsequently on 30.12.2010. The Government Order G.O.Ms.No.47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010, was issued with reference to filling up enormous number of accumulated vacancies in the cadre of Assistants in Registration Department which had not been filled up over the years. In the order, it was disclosed that due to non~filling of hundreds of vacancies, there were practically no Assistants available for promotion to the next higher post of Sub~Registrar Grade II. In the above said backdrop, the recruitment process was set in motion for direct recruitment of Assistants for the first time. The contents of G.O.Ms.No.47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010, as found in paragraph Nos.2 to 4 are re~produced hereunder:

The Commission has requested the Government to 91 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 issue necessary executive orders on the above lines and consequently, to send necessary draft amendment to the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services for the Commission's Views.

4. In the circumstances, the Government accept the proposal of the Inspector General of Registration and direct that 50% vacancies be earmarked under direct recruitment in the substantive post of Assistant in Registration Department every year. On a regular basis, through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Government also direct that the post of “Assistant” in the Registration Department shall be classified as “Non-Technical” and included under the Combined Subordinate Services Examination~I for Direct Recruitment and the Unit for the purpose of allotment shall be “State”.

59. On the basis of the above Government Order, subsequently, another G.O. was issued in G.O.D.No.183, dated 31.05.2010, by the Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration. The G.O. reads as under:

60. The above G.O. clearly stated that the vacancies in the cadre of Assistants to be fixed as 320 which cadre strength was approximately 50% of the estimate of the vacancies for the year 2010-11 by direct recruitment. Although the rules do not provide for filling up of post of Assistant by direct recruitment, a one time exemption was granted for the purpose of overcoming the acute crisis faced by the Department due to shortage of sufficient number of Assistants in the Department. In order to tide over the administrative crisis, the Department resorted to direct recruitment and thus came the notification by the Commission on 30.12.2010. The petitioners herein admittedly were selected and appointed by the Commission pursuant thereto and subsequently, the appointment orders were issued on 18.12.2012, appointing the petitioners as Assistants.

61. In appreciation of the above factual backdrop which preceded the selection and appointment of the direct recruit petitioners, there is no scope for entertaining any doubt by this Court that these petitioners have encroached upon any quota meant for promotees, while they were appointed as per the above two Government Orders. The earmarked vacancies for direct recruitment constituting 50% of the total sanctioned strength at that point of time were 320 and these petitioners came to be appointed in pursuance of such identified vacancies meant exclusively for them. In such categorical scenario, the seniority of the petitioners herein has to be reckoned either from the date of their appointment or from the date of the notification of the Commission, as the case may be.

62. As far as reckoning of seniority of the petitioners 93 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 from the date of their appointment is concerned, there cannot be any controversy at all, as being direct recruits, appointed against substantive vacancies, their seniority was to be assigned from the date of their appointments. Be that as it may, before adverting to other limb of the dispute whether these petitioners were entitled to take their seniority from the date of the Commission-s notification, this Court is inclined to factually examine as to whether the private respondents could said to have been appointed regularly ahead of the petitioners, with reference to the detailed submissions of the respective counsels on the basis of the materials made available on record.

63. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash, in the course of his submissions, has drawn the attention of this Court to two proceedings of the department viz., the proceedings dated 24.11.2012 and 06.01.2014. In the proceedings relate to the promotion of private respondents from the post of Junior Assistants to Assistants, it could be deduced that on the date when the petitioners were directly recruited and appointed to the post of Assistants, many of the private respondents continued to be working as Junior Assistants, their successful completion of probation not being declared owing to non~completion of the training programme which was mandatory for regularising their services as Junior Assistants.

64. In the first of the proceedings dated 24.11.2012, it was mentioned that the appointment of promotee Assistants was against the vacancies 2012-13 and in the second of the communication dated 06.01.2014, it was mentioned as 2013-

14. It is therefore factually established that the private respondents/promotees had been promoted as against the subsequent vacancies which arose in 2012-13 and 2013-14, whereas the petitioners herein had been directly recruited in 94 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 respect of the vacancies of the year 2010-11.

65. While above being the factual position, when the seniority list was notified dated 02.02.2018, the private respondent/promotees were shown senior to these petitioners by advancing their date of regular appointment as Assistants in 2010, 2011 and 2012, ahead of these petitioners. The direct recruits have shown to have been appointed as Assistants only in 2013. What is the basis of antedating the promotion of the private respondent promotees is not explained properly or convincingly either by the learned Additional Advocate General or by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. The only reason that has been pressed into service by the learned counsels is there was an administrative delay in deputing them to the mandatory Bhavani Sagar Training for the purpose of declaring their probation as Junior Assistants and the fault of the administration ought not to affect the career progression of the promotees. The above explanation may appear to be plausible and valid on the precipitative understanding of the case, however, looking at it from the perspective of clash of interest as between the direct recruits and promotees, the explanation may not be held to be valid.

66. In 2010, none of the private respondents/promotees was said to have acquired eligibility for regular appointment as Assistants, as at that point of time, they were working as Junior Assistants and their probation was yet to be declared due to non~completion of the mandatory training. In such admitted circumstances, pitchforking the private respondent promotees into the slots exclusively meant for direct recruits in terms of the above referred two Government Orders, cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts. Firstly, the private respondent promotees were not eligible and qualified to be appointed as regular Assistants in 2010. Secondly, 95 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 when admittedly the direct recruits were regularly appointed as Assistants in December 2012, for the vacancies of the year 2010-11, the claim of the private respondent promotees that they were originally appointed in 2007, as Junior Assistants and that they had successfully qualified in the departmental examination in 2010 itself and therefore they were entitled to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Assistants with all benefits including promotion to next higher grade and seniority, is untenable and contrary to the law on the subject. Such retrospective regularization and the consequent promotion may hold good only towards personal service benefits like counting of service for the purpose of earning their increments, acquiring eligibility for promotion to the higher grades, calculation of pension etc. But, when it comes to seniority as between direct recruits and promotees, the claim of the promotees must be adjudged with reference to the rules and legal principles laid down by the Courts on the subject matter.

67. As far as the rule position is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners referred to Section 3 of the 2016 Act, a comprehensive Act replaced the earlier Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. According to him, appointed to a service means, appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. According to him, the private respondent promotees were initially appointed not in accordance with the provisions of the Rules or the Act and subsequently, relaxation was granted to them. However, this Court is not inclined to go into those aspects for the simple reason that as long as the appointment of the private respondent promotees did not clash with the interest of the petitioners, they cannot stated to be aggrieved.

68. The learned Senior Counsel sought to emphasize 96 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 the fact that the initial appointments being irregular as compassionate appointees, the private respondent promotees' regularisation was dependent on the relaxation to be granted to them in terms of the Act and the Rules governing the service conditions. On the day when the petitioners were appointed, the private respondent promotees could not said to have been fully eligible and qualified for regular appointment as Assistants. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on this aspect.

69. On behalf of the private respondents, with reference to the rule position, reliance was placed on Section 35(aa) of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules replaced by Section 40(2) of the Act, 2016, both are extracted hereunder:

(2) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, where the normal method of recruitment to that service, class, category or grade is by more than one method of recruitment, unless the individual has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined with reference to the date on which he is appointed to the service, class, category or grade.” Provided that where the junior appointed by a particular method or recruitment happens to be appointed to a service, class, category or grade, earlier than the senior appointed by the same method of recruitment, the senior shall be deemed to have been appointed to the service, class, category or grade on the same day on which the junior was so appointed;

Provided further that the benefit of the above proviso shall be available to the senior only for the purpose of fixing inter se seniority.

Provided also that where persons appointed by more than one method of recruitment are appointed or deemed to have been appointed to 98 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 the service, class, category or grade on the same day, their inter se seniority shall be decided with reference to their age.” According to the learned counsel, the date of appointment to the service, class or category alone should be reckoned when appointment is by more than one method of recruitment in terms of the above provisions.

70. The said contention is not supported by Section 3(b) of the Act which has been extracted supra. The date of appointment should be read as date of regular appointment and if the provision is to be applied, the private respondent promotees cannot claim themselves as being appointed regularly as Assistants in 2010, affecting the seniority of the petitioners. But, as far as their personal benefits are concerned, after due relaxation granted by the Government, their service from the date of initial appointment could be counted.

71. Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioners herein gets further fortified by application of Section 3(r) of the Act, 2016. Sub~Clauses (q) and (r) are once again extracted hereunder, to elucidate the position of promotees and direct recruits on their appointments to service:

Provided that, for the purpose of this definition, a person shall be deemed to be not in the service of the Government of India or the Government of the State,

(i) if a period of five years has not elapsed since his first appointment to a service of the Government of India or the Government of a State; or

(ii) if he belongs to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes;”

72. As far as the promotion means appointment of a person from any category to higher category or grade which means that appointment must be regular in terms of the Act. As far as the direct recruit in consultation with the Commission is concerned, he or she is deemed to have been appointed from the date of the notification inviting application for the recruitment. If this sub~clause is to be pressed into service, the date of appointment of these petitioners ought to have been considered from 30.12.2010, in which case, the claim of higher seniority by the private respondent promotees by no means can said to be in consonance with the rule position. In the said circumstances, the present fixation of seniority in terms of the impugned communication dated 02.02.2018, is in contravention of the rules and the same therefore cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

73. Apart from the rule position as explained above, the case laws cited on behalf of the parties needed to be examined. On behalf of the petitioners, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.Sreenivasa Reddy and Ors Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors in C.A.Nos.6575- 6580 of 1994 dated 05.10.1994 was cited and the operative portions of the ruling have also been extracted supra. The observations of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the said decision are pointedly relevant and crucial for settling the lis 100 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 between the petitioners and the private respondent promotees herein. The following observation of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the judgment, is once again extracted hereunder:

74. In the above matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly held that while temporary appointees being regularized at certain point of time, may count their earlier services towards probation, but, it shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority as against the Commission's candidates' seniority which is to be counted on the date when he starts discharging his duty in the post borne on the cadre. In fact, the entire ruling of the Court and the relevant paragraphs extracted supra would squarely support the case of the petitioners herein.

75. On behalf of the petitioners, one other decision was referred in the case of K.Madalaimuthu and Ors Vs. State of Tamil nadu and Ors in C.A.Nos.2791~2793 of 2002 dated 04.07.2006. In that case, the relevant observations of the Hon-ble Supreme Court have also been extracted supra, wherein, the Hon-ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the person who is appointed temporarily cannot said to be in service till such appointment is regularized. It is from the date on which his services are regularized, such appointee can claim seniority.

76. On the same lines, yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been referred in the case of M.P.Palanisamy and Ors Vs. A.Krishnan and Ors in C.A.Nos.3582~84 of 2009 dated 15.05.2009. In that case, the Hon-ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of inter se seniority between the direct recruit P.G.Assistants and the promotee P.G.Assistants and in that context, held that all the P.G.Assistants recruited through the Commission who are already in service cannot be superseded by the P.G.Assistants appointed temporarily though earlier to direct 102 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 recruits and regularized subsequently. In fact, while concluding as such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to an another judgment of its and its observation in paragraph No.13, as under:

That would be clear from Rule 23(a). Consistent with the Rule 23(a), the Government in the order of regularization has directed that the incumbents are eligible for increments from the date of their regularization, as they are fully qualified to hold the post on that date. The increments already sanctioned to them during their service as temporary Junior Professors prior to regular appointment have been ratified by the said order. The High Court was plainly in error in ignoring the statutory rules and the terms and conditions of the order of regularization of services.” (Emphasis supplied) The emphasized portion, undoubtedly, presents out a clear position that the language of the G.O.Ms., offering regularization, is of utmost importance. Therefore, it is clear that that second condition will have to stay as it is.”

77. Here again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such retrospective regularization of service could be available only for earning increment and for commencement of probation and not seniority. Therefore, for the purpose of assignment of seniority, the private respondent promotees certainly cannot claim the benefit of retrospective regularization of their services as Junior Assistants and then, 103 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 consequent promotion as Assistants over and above the claim of the petitioners herein.

78. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents on his turn has relied upon various decisions which have been referred to and the relevant rulings of the Court have also been extracted supra. In the case of Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers- Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors , reported in 1990 2 SCC 715, the Hon-ble Supreme Court in a landmark judgment, after adverting to various case laws, had summed up its ruling in paragraph No.47. As far as the present lis is concerned, the learned counsel relied on paragraph B, which is again extracted hereunder:

79. According to the learned counsel that these petitioners who were continued in service, were eventually granted the benefit of regularization in accordance with the rules and therefore, in terms of the above ruling, their services ought to be counted for all purposes. In that case, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the rules of Engineering Services in the State of Maharashtra and also with reference to the application of quota rota rule as between direct recruits and promotees. In that context, the judgment came to be rendered. The ratio laid down in that judgment was that when the appointment was made from two sources, the quota rota rule to be followed. The reliance placed by the learned counsel based 104 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, may not be valid, as the private respondent promotees' services were retrospectively regularized not as Assistants, but, as Junior Assistants. But, the consideration of this Court is the effect of such regularization in the feeder grade and their promotion in the next higher grade viz., the Assistant.

80. Even otherwise, there is no trespassing or encroachment of the quota meant for the promotees by the petitioners herein, as stated above. These petitioners had been recruited against 320 vacancies clearly earmarked for direct recruitment created for the first time under G.O.Ms.No.47 dated 09.04.2010 and G.O.D.No.183, dated 31.05.2010. The petitioners herein were slotted in those vacancies which cannot be altered to their detriment by super imposing the private respondent promotees in those slots. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondent promotees does not advance their case at all.

81. The learned counsel for the private respondents also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1984 4 SCC 450 in the case of O.P.Singla and Another Vs. Union of India and Others . This Court-s attention has been drawn to paragraph No.30 which has been extracted supra. The decision was rendered particularly on the basis of the facts therein and the ruling cannot therefore ipso facto be imported in the factual matrix of the present case. The learned counsel referred to two other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court one is 1998 4 SCC 456 in the case of Jagdish Ch.Patnaik and Ors Vs. State of Orissa and Ors and the another one is 1999 9 SCC 596 in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. In both the decisions, the Hon-ble Supreme Court had dealt with peculiar factual aspects of those cases and premised its 105 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 decisions on that basis. The decisions as such cannot be blindly or uncritically applied herein.

82. The learned counsel lastly relied on the learned division bench order of this Court rendered in W.A.Nos.302, 425 & 855 of 2014, dated 28.05.2015. Although this Court finds that there are certain observations in favour of the contentions raised on behalf of the private respondents, yet, the facts of this case can be clearly distinguished from the facts of that case. Even otherwise, the learned division bench had no occasion to refer to the rules which have been referred to herein which clearly tilted the balance in favour of the petitioners herein. The learned division bench however has not laid down any proposition of law having precedential value as the decision was primarily and principally rendered in the context of the facts and circumstances of that case.

83. On the other hand, the relevant rules relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners read with the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, fully support the claim of the petitioners herein as against the private respondents. The learned counsel for the private respondents made another submission about the issuance of subsequent G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 17.04.2012, Personnel Administrative Reforms Department. The order sought to amend the special rules for any Ministerial Services in respect of the Registration Department on filling up 50% of the vacancy in the post of Assistant by direct recruitment. The learned counsel referred to paragraph No.9 of the Order which mandate the fixation of inter se seniority between directly recruited Assistants and the Assistants by promotion, which is extracted hereunder:

84. According to the learned counsel, as per the above amendment, the date of appointment is a crucial factor for determining the inter se seniority. This Court has no quarrel with the submission of the learned counsel. The Rule 35(aa) and the replaced Section 40(1) & (2) of the Act, 2016, have already been referred to and considered earlier in this decision.”

90. In Paragraph Nos. 57 to 84 of the Impugned Order in W.P.No.23343 of 2019, the Writ Court has discussed the following Government Orders:-

92. The Writ Court instead has made only a passing remark by observing that “the decision (in Singla case referred supra) was rendered particularly on the basis of the facts therein and the ruling cannot therefore ipso facto be imported in the factual matrix of the present case” ignoring the position of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 108 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 while delivering its decision in the aforesaid case.

93. The impugned Order of the Writ Court is also contrary to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Akhousri Sachindra Nath and others , 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334 and P.Sudhakar Rao & Ors Vs. U.Govinda Rao & Ors , AIR 2013 SC 2533.

94. Errors in the Impugned Order of the Writ Court would not have crept in, if the facts were examined in depth by the Writ Court before passing the impugned Order.

95. If these decisions particularly that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singla case (cited supra) and in Rudra Kumar Sain case and in Patwardhan case (cited supra) were applied to the facts of the case in a proper perspective, perhaps the Writ Court would have come to a different conclusion. I shall elucidate the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

96. That apart, if the facts were examined in the light of the applicable Rules, the decision arrived by the Writ Court in the Impugned Order would have been different.

97. There is a fallacy in Paragraph No. 52 of the Impugned Order as 96 of 127 Promotees had been promoted as Assistants on 24.11.2012 much earlier to 18.12.2012/23.12.2012.

98. This is evident from the admission in Table to Paragraph 5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition by the Private Respondent Direct Recruitees. Relevant portion of Para 5 and the Table in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is extracted below:-

-------------

101 N.Subramanian 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 27.11.2012/21 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 3 102 K.Kumaran 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 01.12.2012/21 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 4 103 R.Kalaamani 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 27.11.2012/21 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 5 104 -------------

109 Mabal Dhaya 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 28.11.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 Nalakkumamri /2012 1 110 M.T.Prakash 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 26.11.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 2 111 R.Kanniah 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 28.11.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 3 112 R.Chandrasekar 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 27.11.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 an /2012 4 113 L.Broadwin 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 01.12.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 5 114 S.Shanmugam 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 27.11.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 6 115 B.Mani 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 28.11.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 7 116 R.Senivasan 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 30.11.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 8 117 K.Shanmugam 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 26.11.2012/22 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 9 118 C.Vengatachala 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 28.11.2012/23 No.18/K1/2018 m /2012 0 119 T.Shanmugasun 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 27.11.2012/23 No.18/K1/2018 daram /2012 1 120 B.Balasaravana 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 26.11.2012/23 No.18/K1/2018 n /2012 2 121 ------------

124 M.Senthilkuma 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 26.11.2012/23 No.18/K1/2018 r /2012 6 125 -------------

127 S.Subramanian 24.11.2012 No.21390/K1 03.12.2012/23 No.18/K1/2018 /2012 9

99. The details of the actual year of promotion of the ‘Promotees’ to the post of ‘Assistant’ and their seniority captured in Paragraph No. 5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are summarized below:-

100. The above Table is a summary of the Table in Paragraph No. 5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petitioner reveals that 96 of 127 Promotees had already been promoted as ‘Assistants’ on 24.11.2012 i.e. before the date on which the Direct Recruitees were 119 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 appointed on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012. Therefore, there was no scope for altering or tampering with the seniority conferred on these 96 Promotees.

101. Though this is the admitted position in Paragraph No. 5 of the Affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition by Direct Recruitees (Private Respondents 1 to 10), yet, the Writ Court has treated even those 96 of 127 Promotees who were promoted before appointment of the Direct Recruitees on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012, as juniors to them by holding that they were promoted later.

102. In my view, the seniority of the rest of the 31 of 127 Promotees also ought not to have been tampered with in the light of the Rules which interface with each other in the matter of preparation of the Seniority List.

103. The Writ Court while passing the Impugned has not taken note of all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules which interface 120 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 with Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Instead, the Writ Court has arrived at its conclusion based on Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

104. The Writ Court has only considered Rules 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. These two Rules also ought to have been considered by the Writ Court while passing the impugned Order.

105. When the impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2016 was issued, the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules was in force. When the impugned proceedings dated 02.02.2018 was issued, the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 came into force with effect from 14.09.2016.

106. Both the proceedings were issued for fixing the inter-se seniority of Assistants for the purpose of their promotion to the post of ‘Sub-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Registrar, II Grade’ under the Tamil Nadu State Registration Service Rules.

107. Rule 35(a) and Rule 35(aa) of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, [presently, Section 40(1) and Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016] deals with the inter-se seniority between the Promotees and Direct Recruitees, which is extracted below:-

where it applies. The date of V, where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins shall be the date on which he duty irrespective of his seniority. joins duty irrespective of his seniority.

(aa) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade (2) The seniority of a person in a shall, where the normal method of service, class, category or grade recruitment to that service, class, shall, where the normal method category or grade is by more than of recruitment to that service, one method of recruitment, unless class, category or grade is by the individual has been reduced to more than one method of a lower rank as a punishment, be recruitment, unless the individual determined with reference to the has been reduced to a lower rank date on which he is appointed to as a punishment, be determined the services, class, category or with reference to the date on grade; which he is appointed to the services, class, category or grade:

108. A superficial reading of Rule 35(aa) of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, [presently, Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu 124 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016] may give an impression that the inter-se seniority between the Direct Recruitees and the Promotees has to be with reference to the date on which they were appointed to the service as Assistant.

109. However, it has to be emphasised that Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, [presently, Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016] are applicable only for reconciling the inter-se seniority between the two categories of employees whose appointments were by the normal method of recruitment.

110. Neither the appointment of Direct Recruitees nor the appointment of the promotes on compassionate ground were by the normal method of recruitment as was/is contemplated under Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, [presently, Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 125 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 2016].

111. Under Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, which is similar to sub clause (1) of Section 40 the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the inter-

se seniority has to be in accordance with reference to the placement of candidates in the Seniority List prepared by the Recruitment Agency or the Appointing Authority subject to the rules of reservation and subject to the fact that such a person is not reduced to a lower rank due to any punishment.

112. We are not concerned with situation contemplated in Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, which is similar to sub clause (1) of Section 40 the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. It applies to the inter-se seniority between the persons, who were appointed by direct recruitment by TNPSC.

113. Till the issuance of G.O.(Ms).No.56, Commercial Taxes and 126 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Registration Department dated 17.04.2012, the only method of recruitment of ‘Assistants’ was by way of promotion under the Rules. The appointment could have been made only on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) in Part II of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules.

114. Neither the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules nor the provision of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules provide for relaxation for the method of recruitment to the post of ‘Assistants’.

115. There were no rules under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules which empowered the Government to issue G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 for making Direct Recruitment on a permanent basis. Only method prescribed for relaxation was under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

116. Only by virtue of amendment to Category 12 in Rule 2 in Section 22 - Vol.III of Tamil Nadu Service Manual viz., The Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules vide G.O. Ms. No. 56, P & A Reforms (B Department) dated 17.04.2012, post of the ‘Assistant’ was also allowed to be made by way of ‘Direct Recruitment’. I shall refer to the same in due course of this disposition.

117. There is also no indication that the above Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010 was issued in consonance with the mandatory requirements of Rule 10(a)(i)(1) in Part II of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules.

118. Thus, it is clear that the appointment that was proposed to be made in Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010 issued pursuant to G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 was itself contrary to the express provisions Rule 10 (a)(i)(1)and Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate 128 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Service Rules as it stood then and the provision of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

119. When G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010, G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 and Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.10.2010 were issued, there was no scope for appointment of an ‘Assistant’ by way of direct recruitment in Category 12 in Rule 2 in Section 22 - Vol.III of Tamil Nadu Service Manual viz., under The Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

120. G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010 expressly recognised there was no provision for direct recruitment to the post of ‘Assistants’ in the Registration Department in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

121. G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration 129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Department dated 09.04.2010 also underscored the legal position under the aforesaid Rules, that the post of the ‘Assistants’ was the only feeder category for further promotion to the 385 sanctioned posts of ‘Sub Registrar, II Grade’ in the Registration Department.

122. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules were also not amended in line with the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as was stated in G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010.

123. As mentioned in the beginning of the Order, G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 also did not amend the ‘Special Rules’ in Category 12 in Rule 2 in Section 22 -

Vol.III of Tamil Nadu Service Manual i.e., TheTamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules as was required and recommended by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

124. G.O.(Ms).No.123 P & AR Department dated 10.09.2009 based on which G.O.(D). No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 was issued had also not authorised the Government or its Department to fill up the sanctioned vacancy of Assistant contrary to the service rules, in this case the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules in Vol III of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual or contrary to Rule 10(a)(i)(1) in Part II of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules.

125. For the sake of clarity, Rule 10(a)(i)(1) to Part II of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules is extracted hereunder:-

126. As per the aforesaid Rule, appointments could be made only on temporary basis where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which had arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with the Rules and the Special Rules. The appointing authority thus could temporarily appoint a person holding requisite qualification for the post.

127. As per the first proviso to sub-rule (a)(i)(1) to Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, even those appointments 132 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 could be made by direct recruitment of any person other than the one sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission from its regular or reserve list of successful candidates. This was the sine qua non under the first proviso to Sub-rule (a)(i)(1) to Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules.

128. In deviation from the scheme under the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules and Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual - Volume III viz., Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, appointments were made to the post of ‘Assistants’ directly based on the above mentioned notification.

129. Only after G.O.(Ms).No.56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012 was issued, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules were amended retrospectively with effect from 09.04.2010 and thereafter,recruitment was made on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

130. Therefore, in that sense, G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 granting one time exemption for making appointment to the post of ‘Assistants’ directly in itself was irregular and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and the provision of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. In any event, it cannot be construed to be the 'normal method' of appointment for the purpose of Rule 35(aa) in 2012.

131. The recruitment procedure adopted for recruitment for Direct Recruitees itself was irregular and was regularised only retrospectively vide G.O.(Ms).No.56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012.

132. These appointments cannot be treated, as irregular, as on the date of their recruitment on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012, defect , if any, in the method proposed G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration 134 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Department dated 31.05.2010 acted upon by virtue of Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010 stood fully cured by the above amendments to the Rules vide G.O.(Ms).No.56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012.

133. I am therefore also inclined to hold that the appointments of the Private Respondents herein were regular as they had the requisite qualifications as per Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010.

134. I shall now explain the position in the ensuing paragraphs in the light of the other Rules as in force during the period in dispute which ought to have been discussed by the Writ Court.

135. The Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules has three parts. Part I deals with preliminary provisions, Part II deals with General Rules and Part III deals with classification of various services under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Part III is 135 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 in Volume III of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual. Part III has about sixty different services.

136. Both the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules and the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules are the ‘Special Rules’ within the meaning of Rule 2(19) of Part I of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules in Part III of Volume III of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual.

137. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

138. These Rules have been now subsumed into Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (for the sake of 136 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 brevity, 2016 Act).

139. The post of ‘Junior Assistant’ and ‘Assistant’ are traceable to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules in Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual - Volume III (i.e., Part III) at Page No.656.

140. The post of a ‘Junior Assistant’ also includes the post of Inspectors in the Revenue Settlement Parties and Special Revenue Inspectors in the Office of the Director Harijan Welfare and Comptists in the Treasury and Accounts Department.

141. The Post of an “Assistant’ is Category 1 service in Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual - Volume III (i.e., Part III) at Page No.656

142. The dispute in the present case relates to inclusion of the names of the Promotees Assistants above the names of the Direct Recruitees 137 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Assistant in the Seniority List for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar, II Grade under the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules.

143. As mentioned above, post of an 'Assistant' was a promotional post. There was no scope for direct recruitment of an Assistant in the Registration Department until issuance of Notification in G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010.

144. As per Rule 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules,the Inspector General of Registration has to prepare and publish in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and the Registration Gazette every year in June, a list of candidates approved for appointment by “Recruitment by Transfer” as Sub-Registrar- II Grade.

145. As per first proviso to the Rule 4 of Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, List of “approved candidates” for appointment by promotion and by recruitment by transfer to all the 138 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 categories of posts in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services shall be prepared annually against the estimated number of vacancies expected to arise during the course of a year.

146. Rule 4 of Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules reads as under:

The list shall also be communicated to all persons concerned by Registered post whose names are found in the list as well as to persons senior to the Junior most person included in the list whose names have not been included in the list. Where the candidates in such list are arranged in their order of preference appointments to the service shall be made in such order:

Provided also that if the qualified candidates, after consideration of their claims, are found not suitable for the post, the names of the next qualified candidates, to the extent necessary, shall be considered:

Provided further that in very special circumstances and in relaxation of the above proviso, if any candidate is allowed to join duty beyond the time limit of six months, his seniority in that post shall be fixed below the junior 145 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 most candidate appointed to that post in that service on the date of joining duty of the former.

147. Under Rule 13A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, the Inspector General of Registration has to prepare an “Annual List”of the ‘Approved Candidate’ by the 15th of March of every year.

The list should contain the names of only those candidates who are eligible for promotion and who possess requisite qualification.

148. As per Rule 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules, the Inspector General of Registration shall prepare a list of candidates approved for appointment to the post of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ by way of recruitment by transfer. This list has to be prepared and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and the Registration Gazette in June of every year.

149. The expression “Approved Candidate”is defined inRule 2(2) of Part I of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

150. This Annual List is used for preparing the Seniority List under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Registration Subordinate Service for promotion of an Assistant in the Registration Department to the post of Sub-Registrar, II Grade in the same Department. While preparing the Seniority List only names of those candidates who are fully qualified can be included in the list.

151. Rule 13A of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and Rule 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules reproduced below:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

153. On the crucial date the direct recruitees as also the promotees should have possessed requisite qualification for the post of Sub-Registrar, II Grade under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules.

154. An Assistant who is serving in the Registration Department under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules who clamours for next higher post of Sub-Registrar,II Grade in the Registration Department must therefore possess requisite qualifications prescribed in Rule 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules.

155. The Annual List of the ‘Approved Candidate’ can consists of the names of only those persons who possess the qualification for the next higher post.

156. Requisite qualifications has been prescribed in Rule 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules for appointment by 149 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 recruitment by transfer to the post of Sub-Registrar, II Grade. Rule 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules reads as under:-

No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post specified in column (1) of the table below by the method of recruitment specified in the corresponding entries in column(2) thereof, unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entries in column(3) thereof :-

Provided that a person who was serving in connection with the affairs of the former State of Travancore - Cochin and allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu under Section 116 of the State Re-organization Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) shall, if he possesses the minimum general educational qualification prescribed by the former Travancore - Cochin State, be deemed to possess the minimum general educational qualification for purposes of recruitment by transfer as Sub-Registrar, II Grade.

Registrars, Recruitment Provided that, others things being equal, II Grade preference shall be given to persons who, in addition to the qualifications specified above, possess a B.L.Degree.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

157. The qualification that was prescribed for Direct Recruitment of 'Assistant' under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service amended by G.O.Ms.No. 56 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 17.04.2012 includes those qualifications which the Promotees would have been possessed while serving as a ‘Junior Assistants’ under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

158. Names of the ‘Approved Candidate’ in the ‘Authoritative List’ each contain only the names of those candidates who had requisite qualification. While preparing a list of ‘Approved Candidates’ for appointment by recruitment by Transfer as such Registrar II Grade, the Inspector General of Registration has to ensure that both the streams of ‘Assistants’ viz., Promotees/Appellants and the Direct Recruitees/Private Respondents should possess requisite qualification as is contemplated in Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, which is similar to Section 7 of the 2016 Act. Thus, for each year such a list has to be 152 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 prepared. If names of persons were left out, their names have to be included.

159. The Inspector General of Registration has to thus prepare and publish the annual list of ‘approved candidates’ for preparing the Seniority List for appointment of Approved Assistants to the post of ‘Sub-

Registrar, II Grade’ by way of Recruitment by Transfer in the Official Gazette and in the Registration Gazette every year in the month of June in terms. This is evident from reading Rule 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules.

160. G.O.(Ms) No.123, P & AR Department, dated 10.09.2009, was issued only meeting out appointments that are made on a “contingent basis” i.e., on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules.

161. G.O.(Ms) No.123, P & AR Department, dated 10.09.2009 merely stated that prior approval of the concerned Department will have to 153 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 be obtained to making such an appointment as it will have revenue implications on the State exchequer by way of disbursal of salary and other service benefits to the persons who are recruited against substantive vacancies. Thus, appointment of the direct recruitees could have been made only against existing vacancies on a contingent basis or on temporary basis and not on permanent basis.

162. However, in deviation of the Rules, Notification in G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010 was issued which culminated in the issuance of G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 followed by Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010 and amendment Notification vide G.O.Ms.No. 56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012, whereby the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service was amended.

163. Further, all the Promotes had acquired requite qualification to 154 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 be promoted as 'Assistants' between 2010-2011 for including their names both in the Annual List under Rule 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and in the “Seniority List” under Rule 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu State Registration Service Rules. However, since their services were not regularized, they were deprived of promotion to the post of Assistants which has been remedied.

164. Distortion in the treatment of the service of the Promotees were remedied by conferring promotion with retrospective effect in the year in which they would have been eligible to be promoted as Assistants.

Once promotion was conferred with retrospective effect, the seniority also to be conferred on them.

165. Further, the Promotees possessed requite qualifications to be promoted as Assistants at least 13 months prior to the appointment of the ‘Direct Recruitees’ on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012. This vital aspect was missed out by the Writ Court while passing the Impugned Order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

166. That apart, both the appointments and promotion to the post of “Assistants” are through different method under the Rules. This aspect also has not been considered by the Writ Court before passing the impugned Order.

167. The seniority conferred on rest of 31 of 127 ‘Promotees’ who were promoted to the post of ‘Assistants’ during the years 2013-2014,2015- 2016 and 2016-2017at best ought have been considered and discussed by the Writ Court while passing impugned order in the Writ Petition filed by Private Respondents 1 to 10/‘Direct Recruitees’. Seniority conferred to them also ought not to have been disturbed by the Writ Court.

168. In Paragraph Nos. 63 and 64 of the Impugned Order, the Writ Court has merely stated that the ‘Promotees’ were promoted to the post of ‘Assistant’ against the vacancy in the Panel Years 2012-2013 and 2013- 2014.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

169. Similarly, few others were promoted during 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016 belatedly although they had requisite qualification much prior to date of recruitment of the Direct Recruitees. Mr.V.A.Raja, the 6th Appellant/21st Respondent in W.A.No.1207 of 2022 was appointed on compassionate ground as a ‘Junior Assistant’ on 15.03.2007.

170. His service as a “Junior Assistant”was regularised with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 15.03.2007 vide G.O.Ms.(2D). 141 dated 20.07.2012 with retrospective effect from the date of the appointment on 15.03.2007 in line with the definition of the expression ‘Appointed to a service’ in Rule 2(1) of Part I of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules read with Rule 23(1) of Part II of the aforesaid Rules [Post amendment, Section 28 of the 2016 Act].

171. Later, Mr.V.A.Raja was promoted as an ‘Assistant’ on 06.01.2014belatedly by the 12th Respondent against the vacancy meant for promotion from the post of ‘Junior Assistant’.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

172. Thus, the Mr.V.A.Raja was also entitled for promotion like 96 others who were appointed in 2007 on Compassionate Grounds who were promoted as Assistants on 24.11.2012.

173. Proceedings dated 06.01.2014 of the 12th Respondent bearing Reference No. 16714/K1/2013 refers to Order of the 12th Respondent dated 24.12.2013.

174. However, a copy of the said Order dated 24.12.2013 of the 12th Respondent has not been kept for our perusal. The aforesaid Order dated 24.12.2012 of the 12th Respondent appears to be a list prepared for promotion during the Panel Year 2013-2014.

175. Mistake if any, that was committed in Order dated 06.01.2014 was that it stated appointment/promotion of Promotees as ‘Assistants’ will be against the vacancy in the Panel Year 2013-2014. This mistake cannot 158 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 deny notional promotion, if such promotion was due earlier.

176. This mistake in the Proceedings dated 06.01.2014 shows that the Promotees mentioned therein were to be promoted against the vacancy in the Panel Year 2013-2014.This mistake in any event cannot be to the disadvantage of the Promotees like Mr.V.A.Raja, as he and they possessed requisite qualification for being promoted earlier.

177. Thus, it is evident that the service of Mr.V.A.Raja as a Junior Assistant was regularized belatedly only in 2012 and was therefore entitled for accelerated promotion as an “Assistant” as there was delay in regularizing his service as a ‘Junior Assistant’ for no fault on his part.

178. The Direct Recruitees in any event would not have acquired necessary qualification for being considered seniors to Promotees who were either promoted prior to 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 or who acquired the qualification for being promoted as Assistant prior to 159 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 18.12.2012/23.12.2012. Therefore, seniority which was conferred to him like others cannot be questioned.

179. The Writ Court ought to have considered the fact that by communication dated 02.11.2012 bearing Reference No. A3/6350/2012, the President of the Bhavani Sagar Training Institute informed that about 25 Junior Assistants were to be sent for training in Batch No. 185 between 14.12.2012 to 11.02.2013. This is also reflected in proceeding dated 12.11.2012 bearing Reference No. 56226/K2of the 12th Respondent.

180. Since the Direct Recruitees like the Private Respondents in these Writ Appeals were appointed only during the Panel Year 2012-2013 on 18.12.2012/23.1.2012, the seniority conferred on the Promotees ought not to have been touched.

181. The seniority of 96 of 127 ‘Promotees’ promoted in the year 2012-2013 on 25.11.2012 etc could not have been touched as these 160 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 promotions given to these ‘Promotees’ were itself belated as they were not sent for mandatory training by the Official Respondents although they became eligible to be sent for such training long before.

182. Since 96 of 127 Promotees were promoted as ‘Assistants’ on24.11.2012, seniority conferred on them notionally from the year 2010 to 2012ought not have been disturbed. Their seniority in the Seniority List cannot impact the seniority of Direct Recruitees recruited on 18.12.2012.

183. 16 of those ‘Promotees’ who were promoted as ‘Assistants’ in the year 2013 have been given retrospective seniority notionally from the years 2011, 2012 etc and rest of the 15 ‘Promotees’ who were promoted as ‘Assistants’ during the year 2015-2016 have also been given notional seniority on various dates during November, 2012 etc.

184. These dates of notional promotion are before and prior to the actual date of appointment i.e., on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 of the Private 161 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Respondents/‘Direct Recrutiees’ to the post of ‘Assistants’. If these “promotees” were indeed entitled to be promoted prior to the appointment of the Private Respondents/‘Direct Recrutiees’ on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012, their right seniority ought not to have been disturbed.

185. Therefore, it cannot be held that Promotees who were either promoted prior to appointment of Direct Recruitees on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 or who were entitled to be promoted before the appointment of the Private Respondents/‘Direct Recrutiees’ on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 infringed their rights or their rights were trampled.

On the contrary, it is the rights of the Promotees which was trampled upon was rectified by the impugned proceedings of the 12th respondent.

186. Similarly, it also cannot be held that those Promotees who acquired qualification prior to 18.12.2012/23.12.2012for being promoted as ‘Assistants’ were juniors to Direct Recruitees as they were not responsible for delay in their promotion to the post of ‘Assistants’. If promotion is to be 162 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 conferred notionally, seniority also will have to be conferred on them.

187. The delay in regularising their probation and promotion while serving as Junior Assistant cannot be to the disadvantage of these 127 Promotees.

188. If their services were regularized as when they became eligible for declaration of probation as ‘Junior Assistant’ they would have been promoted as ‘Assistants’ against the sanctioned vacancies long before the recruitment of Private Respondents/Direct Recruitees as ‘Assistants’ on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012.

189. Further, at the time when direct appointments were made on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 to the post of ‘Assistants’, the Direct Recruitees could not have possessed all other requisite qualification i.e., clearing of the Departmental Tests for including their names either in the Annual List or in the Seniority List in the respective Service Rules.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

190. In any event, the names of the Direct Recruitees could not have been included in the ‘Annual List’ contemplated under Rule 13A of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, as they would not have possessed requisite qualification for promoting to the next higher post of 'Sub-

Registrar, II Grade' under the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules in the year of their appointment.

191. Neither there is any discussion in the Impugned Order nor an attempt made to elicit as to when the Direct Recruitees came to possess the requisite additional qualifications viz.,Registration Test, Account Test for Subordinate Officers, Part I and District Office Manual Test which qualifications were obtained by the Promotees in the year 2010.

192. Thus, the Writ Court has thus wrongly entertained the Writ Petition and has interfered with the internal mechanism for correction of the seniority in the seniority list and has bypassed the internal method under the 164 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Rule prescribed for correcting the Seniority List.

193. Injustices caused to 127 Promotees were rectified which has been disturbed in the impugned Order by the Writ Court without eliciting the details and ignoring the admission in Paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the seniority of all the Promotees has been disturbed by the Writ Court. A reading of Paragraph No. 5 of the Affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition and the Table below it would indicate that only 16 of the 126 Promotees were appointed vide Proceedings bearing C.No.16714/K1/2013 dated 06.01.2014. 96 had already been promoted on 24.11.2012. That apart, the Seniority List has been disturbed ignoring the Relevant Rules.

194. Until the amendment Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012 with retrospective effect from 09.04.2010, the Post of an 'Assistant' was only a Promotional Post under Tamil Nadu Ministerial 165 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Service Rules in the Registration Department.

195. The following table summarizes the Method of Appointment, Qualification and Appointing Authority under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules for the following post of:-

196. It has to be also remembered that G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 which was issued pursuant to G.O.Ms. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010 was by way of an exception to the procedure prescribed for appointment under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules for filling up the post of ‘Assistant’ by direct recruitment.

197. There was delay in promoting the Promotees as Assistant earlier even though they possessed requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistants much prior to the appointment of the Direct Recruitees on 168 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 18.12.2012/23.12.2012.

198. Therefore, the placement of the names of the Promotees in the Seniority List for the above Direct Recruitees ought not to have been tampered with or meddled with, if they were eligible for promotion before the appointment of Direct Recruitees on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012.

199. That apart, mere inclusion of a name in the ‘Authoritative list’ did not confer any right upon such a person for appointment to a post by recruitment by transfer. As such a person cannot claim appointment to a post immediately on release of such a list of approved candidates as a matter of right by virtue of inclusion in that ‘Authoritative List’.

200. Such inclusion cannot result in automatic inclusion in the 'Seniority List' for promotion. The appointing authority can appoint or promote only vacancy and subject to such a person possessing the requisite qualification during the particular Panel Year.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 PROBATION PERIOD:

201. As per Rule 32(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, every person appointed to a category by way of Direct Recruitment, shall be on probation for a time period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. Rule 32(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules is extracted below:-

202. On declaration of probation of service, the Appellants (Promotees) and similarly placed persons also became a full member within the meaning of the definition of ‘Full Member’ in Rule 2(8) of Part I of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules [presently, 2(k) of the 2016 Act]. The expression ‘Full Member’ reads as under:-

203. There is also no discussion in the Impugned Order of the Writ Court as to whether the Private Respondents (Writ Petitioners/Direct Recruitees) were eligible to be promoted to the post of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ and had qualified for the said post before their probation was declared ‘Assistants’ on 18.03.2016 and whether they have cleared the requisite qualifications for promotion.

204. Thus, the Direct Recruitees were to be in probation only for two years within a continuous period of three years. Thus, their probation should have been declared only in 2014. Pursuant to the appointments made in line with the recommendation inG.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010when indeed there was no scope for appointment of ‘Assistants’ by way of ‘Direct Recruitment’.

Under the Rules.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

205. These Promotees, who were recruited in 2007, were sent for training to Bhavani Sagar Training Institute in the year 2012, 2013 and 2014belatedly. Thereafter, their probation as ‘Junior Assistants’ were declared and thereafter they were promoted as ‘Assistants’ on the various dates as mentioned in Paragraph No.5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

206. The dates of promotion as in Paragraph No. 5 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, which have been captured earlier, would reveal that 96 of the Promotees of 127 were promoted on 24.11.2012, 16 were promoted on 19.11.2013 and 15 were promoted on 07.06.2016.These dates were before the dates on which the Direct Recruitment would have acquired requisite qualification.

207. As per Rule 23(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which is similar to Section 28 of the 2016 Act, persons appointed on temporary basis either under Rule 10(a) or 10(d) to fill such a 172 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 vacancy in any service, class or category, otherwise than in accordance with the rules governing the appointments to fill such a vacancy when, such vacancy is being a vacancy that may be filled by direct recruitment and a person is subsequently appointed to the service, class or category in accordance with the Rules, probation commences either from the date of first temporary appointment or from such subsequent date, as the appointing authority may determine.

208. Thus, the date of commencement of probation is to be either from the date of temporary appointment or from such subsequent date as may be determined by the appointing authority. As per the proviso to the aforesaid Rule/Section, the date of the commencement of probation shall not be earlier from the date of commencement of probation of the junior most person already in service.

209. The argument that the declaration of probation of the Promotees were made from an earlier date than the date of commencement of probation 173 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 of the Private Respondents (Direct Recruitees) already in service from 18.12.2012 cannot be countenanced as already 96 of 127 Promotees were appointed on 24.11.2012 only 31 were promoted after 18.12.2012/23.12.2012. Thus, there is no comparison between the two categories i.e., Promotees and Direct Recruitees for the purpose of the aforesaid Rule/Section, even if the 1stproviso to the aforesaid Rule/Section is applied.

210. What is contemplated in the proviso to the aforesaid Rule is that the determination of commencement of probation of those who are recruited on temporary basis under Rule 10(a) and 10(b) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, [formerly, Sub-clause (1) and (2) of Section 17 of 2016 Act] and the inter se seniority with the junior most person already in service cannot be tampered with.

211. Therefore, there cannot be any discrimination is so far as commencement and declaration of probation between these two categories 174 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 of ‘Assistants’, namely, Promotees appointed on compassionate grounds and Direct Recruitees appointed on 18.12.2012 directly as ‘Assistants’.

212. The commencement of probation of the 9 Appellants/Promotees in these Writ Appeals, as also the rest of 118 Promotees has to date back necessarily either to the date of their actual appointment to the post of ‘Junior Assistants’ or any date as may be determined by the appointing authority subject to the proviso to the aforesaid Rule/Section.

213. Although, the appointment of the Appellants/Private Respondents, (‘the Promotees’) and other similarly placed persons were on compassionate grounds, their appointments even if not strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, initially their appointmentshave to be treated as regular under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules and later under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

214. Their appointment as ‘Junior Assistants’ ought to have been regularised earlier in view of the prevailing Government Orders and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases where appointments were made on compassionate grounds.

215. The probation of the Appellant/Promotees ought to have been declared earlier in terms of Rules 32(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service.

216. There is also no dispute that these Promotees had equipped themselves by writing necessary Departmental Tests which would have entailed them promotion to the next promotional post of ‘Assistants’ in accordance with Section 22 of Vol III - Tamil Nadu Service Manual viz., Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules as it stood then.

217. The Private Respondents, who are the Direct Recruitees cannot 176 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 have any grievance regarding the commencement of probation of the Promotees whose services were unfortunately not regularised till 2012 to 2016 in spite of they having cleared the Departmental Tests in the year 2010.

218. Since the Private Respondents/Direct Recruitees were appointed after the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, their probation in the post of ‘Assistants’ was declared on time within a period of two years on 18.03.2016.

219. In fact, the recruitment of Private Respondents/Direct Recruitees was not even contemplated in 2010 till the issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department when the Promotees became eligible for promotion to the post of ‘Assistants’.

220. Somewhat similar circumstance was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the S.B.Parwardancase (cited supra) which decision 177 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 was affirmed by the Singla case (cited supra) and which was followed by the Court in Rudra Kumar Sain case (cited supra).

221. At the outset, I would like to draw attention to a decision of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos. 597 to 599 of 2022 in The Director, Animal Husbandry and Medicine & Ors Vs. V.Ilango, wherein one of us was a party to the decision (Hon’ble Justice Mr.S.S.Sundar). There, the Division Bench observed as under:-

222. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and over held that seniority in service jurisprudence is not a vested right and that it should be in consonance with rules and regulations governing the service which the State can modify even retrospectively in accordance to the circumstance and if deemed necessary in the public interest.

223. In S.B.Patwardhan Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 399, the issue before the Hon’ble Court was that whether the Promotees and Direct Recruitees belong to the same class and whether they can be treated equally and/or whether they belong to different classes and categories and can be justifiably treated unequally.

224. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding on the issue in the aforesaid case held that it should be borne in mind the basic principle that when a cadre consists of both permanent and temporary employees, the accident of confirmation by the Government cannot be an intelligible criterion for determining the seniority between the Promotees and Direct 179 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Recruitees. It was held that all other factors being equal, continuous officiation ought to receive recognition in determining the seniority as between persons recruited from different sources so long as they belong to the same cadre, discharge similar functions and bear similar responsibilities.

225. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.P. Singla &Anr Vs. Union of India & Others. , 1984 AIR 1595 affirmed its views in S.B.Patwardhan Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 399 and provided a framework for determining inter se seniority between direct recruits and Promotees, emphasizing the importance of continuous length of service in the cadre for Promotees.

226. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court centers around fairness and equity thereby ensuring that promotees who have served for a longer period of time are not unfairly placed junior to direct recruits who have been appointed later into the service. It further stated that promotion and seniority should be non-discriminatory and should pass the test of 180 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 constitutionality under Articles 14 and 16.

227. There appointments were made on a ‘temporary basis’ both under Rule 16 and 17 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules which I shall be referring to in due course in the discussion. Suffice to state for the present that, in the aforesaid case, appointments were against substantive vacancies and by creation of ‘temporary posts’ in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

228. The Delhi Higher Judicial Service had issued a Recruitment Notification on 31.01.1981 and invited applications for filling up three permanent posts in the cadre of Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

229. The Petitioners therein were promotees who had joined services long back and thus the disputed the recruitment by way of Direct Recruitment for the aforesaid permanent posts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

230. The case thus reached the shores of the Hon’ble Supreme Court directly to settle the inter se seniority between the persons who were serving against temporary vacancies created and those against temporary posts and those recruited directly pursuant to the aforesaid Recruitment Notification dated 31.01.1981.

231. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singla case (cited supra) held that a person inducted into cadre through different sources under Rules are entitled to equal treatment in fixation of their inter se seniority. Based on the facts, the Court therein held that temporary promotees cannot be discriminated against and placed junior to direct recruits in the seniority list merely because their authorities failed to convert their posts into permanent posts despite their long and continuous officiation in the promotional posts.

This is quite similar to the factual situation with which this Court is concerned with in the present case.

232. There the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with 182 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 appointments made under Rule 16 and 17 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules. The schedule to the Rules shows that the initial authorised permanent strength of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service was 16, out of which one was to be District and Sessions Judge and 12 were to be Additional District and Sessions Judges. Remaining were appointed in Leave-deputation reserve vacancies. Out of these 16 posts, one was a super time scale post, three were selection grade posts and twelve were time scale posts.

233. The contention of the Petitioners therein is that seniority between promotees and direct recruitees must be determined in accordance with their respective dates of their continuous officiation as Additional District and Sessions Judges and that, Direct Recruits who were appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges after the promotees are so appointed, cannot be ranked higher in seniority over the promotees.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

234. It was urged that the promotees discharge identical functions and bear same responsibilities as the direct recruits and upon their appointments they constitute one common class.

235. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to Rule 7, 8 and 9 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules which deal with regular recruitment and inter se seniority among the members of the Delhi Judicial Service.

References to these rules are in Paragraph Nos. 8 to 9 of the said decision .

In Paragraph No. 10, the Court has also referred to the initial recruitments to the service and has referred to Rule 12, 13 and 15 of the aforesaid Rules.

236. In Paragraph No.11 of the said decision , the Court referred to Rule 16 and 17 in Part V of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules which dealt with ‘temporary appointments’. For the sake of clarity, relevant portion of the decision referring to those rules are reproduced below:-

Rule 17 — Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Administrator may, in consultation with the High Court, fill substantive vacancies in the Service by making temporary appointments thereto from amongst members of the Delhi Judicial Services.”

237. Para 10 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singla case (cited supra) reads as under:-

238. There, the qualifications for appointment as Additional Judges made under Rule 16 and 17 Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules were one and the same. However, the method of appointment was different. The first method was appointment as Additional Judges against ‘Temporary Posts’ and the second method was appointment as Additional Judges against substantive posts.

239. Whereas, in the present case there is a marked difference in the qualification of ‘Promotees’ and that of the ‘Direct Recruitees’.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

240. The majority view was authored by the Hon’ble Mr.Chief Justice, Y.V.Chandrachud, as he was then for himself and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pathak. They concluded as under:-

Appointments of promotees under these two Rules have to be made from amongst the promotees only. Whenever appointments are made to the Service under either of these Rules, neither the quota reserved for direct recruits nor the rule of rotation of vacancies between them and the promotees can have any application. The question then is, in situations resulting in the suspension of the rule of ‘quota and rota’, which is the equitable rule for determining seniority between direct recruits on the one hand and promotees who are appointed under Rule 16 and 17 on the other? It is difficult to evolve a rule which will cause no hardship of any kind to any member of the Service. Therefore, the attempt has to be to minimise, as far as possible, the inequities and disparities which are inherent in a system which provides for recruitment to the Service from more than one source. While doing this, the one guiding principle which must be kept in mind is that classification in a gloss on the right to equality. It is but a step in the process of working out the equities between persons who are entitled to equal treatment. It is therefore necessary to ensure that classification is made on a broad, though rational, basis so as not to produce the self-defeating result of denying equality to those, who in substance, are entitled similarly.

32. That is why, it would be hyper-technical to make a sub-classification between promotees appointed under Rule 16 and those appointed under Rule 17, with the object of denying to the latter the equality of status and opportunity with the former and with direct recruits. It 189 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 is true that under Rule 16, promotees are appointed to temporary posts in the Service while, under Rule 17 they are appointed in a temporary capacity to substantive vacancies in the Service. But this kind of service jargon clouds the real issue as to weather persons appointed under different rules necessarily belong to different classes and tends to produce inequalities by an artful resort, dictated by budgetary expediency, to the familiar device of fixing dissimilar lables on posts which carry the same duties and responsibilities and are subject to similar pre appointment tests. It may even be that in the process of consultation, the High Court exercises greater vigilance in regard to appointments proposed under Rule 16 than in regard to appointments which are proposed under Rule 17. But. the fact that the High Court chooses to adopt, of its own volition, any particular approach in the matter of appointments made under different rules necessarily belong to different classes. The requirement for appointments under both the rules is, equally, that they must be made in consultation with the High Court. The High Court is, therefore, expected to apply the same standard and adopt the same approach whether appointments are proposed to be made under Rule 16 or Rule 17 will result in the creation of a distinction where no difference exists, The object of classification is to find a remedy to such situations, not to create or perpetuate them.”

241. The above majority view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singla case (cited supra) is not different from the minority view of Hon’ble 190 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, as he was then.

242. The view of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji encapsulated the majority in para 61 with the following observation:-

243. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singla case (cited supra) made it clear that where a service consists of recruitments made from two different sources and the rules and regulations provide for their recruitment and their rights, primarily those rights have to be adjusted within the scheme of the rules though it might in some cases lead to certain amount of imbalances or injustices.

244. Thus, it cannot be straight away inferred that seniority is to be reckoned from the date of appointment especially when there are two different method of appointments.

245. Relying on the aforesaid judgement in Singla case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rudra Kumar Sain (cited supra), held that appointment of employee possessing statutory qualifications to the promotional post after due consultation with or approval of the competent authority, and continue for a fairly long period, held, is not ad hoc, fortuitous or stopgap and therefore such service cannot be ignored in 193 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 computing the length of service for inter-se seniority between such Promotees and Direct Recruits. This is quite similar to the facts of the present case.

246. In Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 of Rudra Kumar Sain (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly captured the service law jurisprudence with more clarity. Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 of the aforesaid decision are reproduced below:-

247. The discussion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case leading to the above decision in Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 are captured below:-

It is this impasse created on account of inaction of the authorities and on account of non-adherence to the provisions of the Rules strictly, which persuaded the Court in Singla casel to evolve the principles for working out equities and that principle has to be followed by the High Court in drawing up the seniority list. It is not necessary to deal with the contention, raised by Mr Rakesh Kumar, appearing for the direct recruits and Shri J.P. Singh, appearing in person, who is a direct recruit 197 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 also, as well as Mr R.C. Chopra, appearing in person, who is a promotee, as essentially, they adopted the arguments of either Mr Dipankar Gupta or Mr Gopal Subramanium and Mr Kapil Sibal.

16.The three terms "ad hoc", "stopgap" and "fortuitous" are in frequent use in service_ jurisprudence. In the absence of definition of these terms in the Rules in question we have to look to the dictionary meaning of the words and the meaning commonly assigned to them in service matters. The meaning given to the expression "fortuitous' in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary is "accident or fortuitous casualty', This should obviously connote that if an appointment is made accidentally, because of a particular emergent situation and such appointment obviously would not continue for a fairly long period But an appointment made either under Rule 16 or 17 of the Recruitment b Rules, after due consultation with the High Court and the appointee possesses the prescribed qualification for such appointment provided in Rule 7 and continues as such for a fairly long period, then the same cannot be held to be "fortuitous. In Black's Law Dictionary, the expression "fortuitous" means "occurring by chance", "a fortuitous event may be highly unfortunate". It thus, indicates that it occurs only by chance or accident, c which could not have been reasonably foreseen. The expression "ad hoc" in Black's Law Dictionary, means "something which is formed for a particular purpose". The expression stopgap as per Oxford Dictionary, means "a temporary way of dealing with a problem or satisfying a need".

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

19. The meaning to be assigned to these terms while interpreting provisions of a service rule will depend on the provisions of that rule and the context in and the purpose for which the expressions are used. The meaning of any of these terms in the context of computation of inter se seniority of officers holding cadre post will depend on the facts and circumstances in which the appointment came to be made. For that purpose it will be necessary to look into the purpose for which the post was created and the nature of the appointment of the officer as stated in the appointment order, If the appointment order itself indicates that the post is created to meet a particular temporary contingency and for a period specified in the order, then the appointment to such a post can be aptly described as "ad hoc" or "stopgap". If a post is created to meet a situation which has suddenly arisen on account of happening of some event of a temporary nature then the appointment of such a post can aptly be described as "fortuitous in nature. If appointment is made to meet the contingency arising on account of an delay in completing the process of regular recruitment to the post due to any h reason and it is not possible to leave the post vacant till then, and to meet this contingency an appointment is made then it can appropriately be called as a "stopgap arrangement and appointment in the post as "ad hoc"

Relevant portion from the said Judgement is extracted below:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE WRIT COURT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER:-

Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (cited supra), K.Madalaimuthu&Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (cited supra), M.P.Palanisamy& Ors. Vs. A.Krishnan & Ors. ( cited supra) and Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers-Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (cited supra) which were relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the Direct Recruitees (Respondents/Writ Petitioners) during hearing are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as they dealt with a situation where appointment itself was made on a temporary basis to a temporary post or in the post allotted to be filled by way of ‘Appointment by Transfer/Promotion’.

255. They further dealt with situations where the period of service before regularising the temporary appointments of delinquents in accordance with law was ignored while considering the seniority.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

256. The fact also remains that all the ‘Promotees’ who were appointed to the post of ‘Junior Assistants’ in the year 2007 and were promoted as ‘Assistants’ only after their probation as ‘Junior Assistants’ was declared later. Such belated promotion to the promotees as “Assistants” cannot to be to their disadvantage.

257. Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 is parimateria with Rule 35(a) of the aforesaid Rules. As per Sub-section (2) to Section 1 of the aforesaid Act, Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 is deemed to have come into force with effect from 01.01.1995.

258. As per Section 40(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his 205 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 seniority and the seniority of a person in a service, class or category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or other Appointing Authority, subject to the rule of reservation where it applies, as the case may be.

259. As per Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service Act), 2016, the seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, where the normal method of recruitment to that service, class, category or grade is by more than one method of recruitment, unless the individual has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined with reference to the date on which he is appointed to the services, class, category or grade.

260. The appointment of Direct Recruitees pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010, 206 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 and Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.10.2010 was strictly not the ‘normal method’ of recruitment to the post of ‘Assistant’ but for the statutory intervention vide G.O. Ms. No. 56, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 17.04.2012.

261. The facts on record is that the Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010 by virtue of which the Private Respondents/‘Direct Recruitees’ were appointed pursuant to the above mentioned Government orders viz., G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 was issued without actually amending the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, although G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010. It was clearly indicated that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) had recommended an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

262. However, as mentioned aboveit is highly improbable that the Direct Recruitees would have had the requisite qualification as per the amended Rules when they were appointed on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 as ‘Assistants’ in view of the amendment to Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules as amended by G.O.(Ms).No.56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012.

263. On the other hand, the appointment of the Promotees on compassionate grounds purportedly under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules though contrary to the express requirement of the aforesaid provision has been now recognised as a valid method of appointment/recruitment both in terms of various Government Orders issued in this regard and as per the decisions of the Courts.

264. Thus, both categories of appointments viz., appointment of Promotees and recruitment/appointment of ‘Direct Recruitees’ at least to begin with were contrary to the express provisions of the Tamil Nadu 208 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Ministerial Service Rules.

265. As far as the Promotees are concerned, their appointment on compassionate grounds stands sanctioned in view of the Government Orders issued for such recruitments on compassionate grounds.

266. As far as the appointments of Direct Recruitees are concerned, their recruitment stands regularised in view of the amendment notification vide G.O.(Ms).No.56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012.

267. The delay in sending some of the ‘Promotees’ among 126 other promotees to the Bhavani Sagar Training Institute has resulted in delayed declaration of the probation of 96 of 127 ‘Promotees’ in 2012, 16 Promotees in 2013 and 15 Promotees in 2014. Such delay cannot deny the ‘Promotees’ their right to seniority to the next higher posts on time.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

268. The fact remains that the delay in sending the ‘Promotees’ for probation after they were recruited temporarily on compassionate grounds to the post of ‘Junior Assistant’ was only on account of the delay by Official Respondents, i.e., the 11th and 12th Respondents and not on account of any delay attributable to Appellants/Private Respondents or rest of the ‘Promotees’.The delay on the part of the Official Respondents in declaring their probation as Junior Assistant cannot be to their disadvantage.

269. Their interest cannot be subservient to the interest of the Direct Recruitees who were recruited directly on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012. The Writ Court also has not been informed that the delay in promoting the promotees was not on account of any fault on the part of the Appellants/Private Respondents and other ‘Promotees’ when their probation was declared.

270. The probation of these Promotees were declared in accordance with Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules which prescribes ‘Date of commencement of probation of persons first 210 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 appointed temporarily’. The initial date of appointment to the post of ‘Junior Assistant’ would be relevant as far as all other service benefits as per the provision of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules are concerned.

271. Therefore, once the service of the ‘Promotees’ and similarly placed persons who were initially appointed to the post of ‘Junior Assistants’ on compassionate grounds were regularised after declaration of their probation period, they were entitled to be promoted and conferred seniority over the directly recruited Private Respondents (Direct Recruitees) who joined service only on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 pursuant to artificial intervention vide G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010 and G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 and Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010.

272. The services of the ‘Promotees’ are to be reckonedfrom the date of their initial appointment to the post of ‘Junior Assistants’ in terms of 211 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Section 37 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

273. The delay on the part of the Official Respondents in sending the Promotees for training although they had cleared their Departmental Exam in the year 2010 before the Recruitment Notification No.258 dated 30.12.2010was issued pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010 and G.O.(D).No.183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 was issued by the Government and cannot be to their rights to claim seniority.

274. Merely because the Direct Recruitees were directly appointed on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012 after amendment to Category 12 in Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules on 30.12.2012 in Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual - Volume III vide G.O.(Ms).No.56, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.04.2012 cannot claim seniority over all Promotees included who had either cleared 212 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 the necessary departmental examination earlier and were eligible to be promoted earlier or who were promoted earlier to the Direct Recruitment of the Private Respondents on 30.12.2012.

275. The Writ Court in Paragraph No. 4(iv) of the Impugned Order has also erroneously referred to the years as 2012, 2013 and 2014 ignoring the fact that 96 Promotees of 127 had already been promoted on 24.12.2012.

Only for 31 Promotees (some of the Appellants included) who were promoted on 19.11.2013 and 07.06.2016, the seniority was notionally fixed above the Direct Recruitees in the post of ‘Assistant’ as the actual date of promotion of these 31 Promotees to the post of ‘Assistant’ was delayed, though they qualified for promotion even prior to the appointment of Direct Recruitees on 18.12.2012. Therefore, such delay cannot be to their disadvantage. It would be unfair and arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.

276. Preparation of ‘Annual List’ in Rule 13A of Tamil Nadu 213 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Ministerial Service Rules is only intended for high lighting the names of the persons who are eligible for promotion in the respective panel year with 15th of March of every year as the crucial date.

277. Unless, requisite additional qualifications were obtained by these 320 Direct Recruitees as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.56, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 17.04.2012 and under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules before the rest of 31 Promotees out of 127 Promotees, who were promoted in the year 2013- 2014 and 2015-2016 [16 in 2013-2014 + 15 in 2015-2016], the Direct Recruitees cannot claim any seniority over these Promotees also.

278. There can be no doubt as far as Appellant (Promotees) possessed the requisite qualifications in the 1st Table to Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules as otherwise, they would not have been promoted as ‘Assistants’ between Panel Years 2012-2016.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

279. It is also unlikely that the Private Respondents (Writ Petitioners/Direct Recruits) would have been cleared (i)Registration Tests;

(ii)Account Test for Subordinate Officers, Part-I; (iii)Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual Testprior to the declaration of their probation on 18.03.2016 to have their name included in the Annual List and the ‘Seniority List’ that was prepared earlier on 01.04.2016 and was published issued vide Letter/Proceeding dated 07.06.2016.

280. Similarly, in the impugned order, the Writ Court has also not discussed in detail as to whether Private Respondents 1 to 10 and other Private Respondents who were subsequently impleaded in one of the Writ Appeal had requisite qualification as per the rules as it stood at the time of issuance of Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010 barring the one stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010 or the above additional qualification prescribed vide Notification No. 258 dated 30.12.2010.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

281. The appointment of the Direct Recruitees on 18.12.2012 cannot be confused with claim for their seniority in the cadre for promotion to the next higher post of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ under the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules in proportion to the allocation of 320 vacancies that was proposed in G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010 for Direct Recruitment and acted upon with the issuance of G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 and Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.10.2010.

282. When the 127 Promotees (9 of whom are the Appellants here) and others who were recruited as ‘Junior Assistants’ under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service were subsequently promoted to the post of ‘Assistants’ after their probation was declared as ‘Junior Assistants’ belatedly both before and after the appointment of the Direct Recruitees were appointed to the post of ‘Assistants’ directly on 18.12.2012/23.12.2012, the inter se 216 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 seniority between the ‘Promotees’ and ‘Direct Recruits’ at best could have been reconciled for the purpose of promotion to the post of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ by the Registration Department under Section 27 of Vol III - Tamil Nadu Service Manual viz., in terms of the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service and in terms of Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, [formerly, Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules].

283. Further, as per Annexure IX-C read with Rule 38 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules inter se seniority between the inter-se-

seniority between the directly recruited Assistants and the Assistants appointed by promotion shall be as per the provisions laid down in Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services where the recruitments were by normal method of recruitment.

284. It cannot be said these Appellants/‘Promotees’ were to compete only against the balance 320 vacancies in the post of ‘Assistant’ that were 217 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 meant to be filled by way of promotion. It cannot be said that they cannot claim seniority over the Private Respondents/‘Direct Recruitees’, as they are separate and different class and belong to a different category as their method of recruitment was different from that of the ‘Direct Recruitees’.

285. This distortion has to be reconciled in terms of the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singla case (cited supra) which affirmed the view in Patwardhan case (cited supra) and was later followed in Rudra Kumar Sain case. I have also not seen any contra view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

286. Even if the Direct Recruitees were to be held senior and their names were to be included in the Additional List for the purpose of Rule 13A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and in terms of Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules/ Section 40 of the 2016 Act, they cannot be promoted unless they had acquired the necessary qualification viz., (i) Registration Tests; (ii)Account Test for 218 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Subordinate Officers, Part-I; (iii)Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual Test before the Promotees. Till they acquire the aforesaid qualification, their name cannot be included in the aforesaid List.

287. These aspects ought to have been considered by the Writ Court while passing the Impugned Order. Instead, the Writ Court has merely recorded few submissions on behalf of the ‘Promotees’, ‘Direct Recruitees’ and the Official Respondents and few decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to arrive at a totally erroneous conclusion.

288. That apart, the appointing authority under the aforesaid Rules as far as the Registration Department is concerned is the Inspector General of Registration for both ‘Assistants’ and ‘Junior Assistants’ for preparing the ‘Seniority List’ for the purpose of promotion.

289. It would also include preparation of a Seniority List under Rule 219 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 13A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules for promotion of ‘Assistants’ to the post of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ in the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules who had requisite qualification prescribed by the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Rules made vide G.O. Ms. No. 56, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 17.04.2012 with retrospective effect from 09.04.2010.

290. The above qualifications of Departmental Tests could have been acquired by Direct Recruitees only after joining the services. The amendment to the aforesaid Rules by the G.O. Ms. No. 56, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 17.04.2012 clearly states the Direct Recruitees should have cleared the Departmental Tests by before their probation period.

291. The ‘Promotees’ who were promoted to the post of ‘Assistants’ in the years between 2013 and 2016 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules have to be considered senior both on facts and on 220 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 law to the Private Respondents (Writ Petitioners/Direct Recruits) in accordance to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Parwardan case(cited supra), the Singla case( cited supra) and Rudra Kumar Sain case (cited supra).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION:-

292. In view of the above discussion, the seniority of the ‘Promotees’ who were appointed to the post of ‘Assistants’ by way of Transfer/Promotion in the year 2012 on 24.11.2012 cannot be disturbed.

293. Similarly, the seniority of the Promotees who were appointed to the post of ‘Assistants’ by way of Transfer/Promotion in the years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 cannot be disturbed. They are also entitled to be treated as seniors to the Private Respondents (Writ Petitioners/Direct Recruitees).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022

294. The delay in declaring the probation of Promotees as ‘Junior Assistants’ was not on the account of their fault. Therefore, it cannot be to their disadvantage.

295. The ‘Promotees’ who are here in these Writ Appeals in representative capacity and were appointed to the post of ‘Assistants’ by way of Promotion on 24.11.2012 both on facts and on a strict application of Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 [formerly 35(aa) Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules] seniors to the Private Respondents (Writ Petitioners/Direct Recruits).

296. Though, Private Respondents (Direct Recruitees) were appointed to the post of ‘Assistants’ directly on 18.12.2012 and 23.12.2012 pursuant to the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010, G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and 222 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 and Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.10.2010. They can claim for seniority in promotion only from the date when they cleared their Department Tests and possessed at best, the requisite qualification for being promoted as ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’.

297. Though, the date of seniority of Direct Recruitees for promotion to the post of ‘Sub-Registrar, II Grade’ from the post of ‘Assistants’ can be reckoned from the date they were borne into the cadre, they are eligible for promotion only after acquiring the requisite qualification for the post of ‘Assistants’. The Promotees who had acquired the requisite qualification for the post of ‘Assistants’ well ahead of the Direct Recruitees cannot be deprived of promotion by edging them out of the Seniority List. Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules has to be read harmoniously with Rule 13A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

298. Since I have concluded that the recruitment of the Private 223 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Respondents (Writ Petitioners/Direct Recruits) by way of Direct Recruitment in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 47, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 09.04.2010, G.O.(D).No. 183, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.05.2010 and Recruitment Notification No. 258 dated 30.10.2010 is ‘normal method’ of recruitment (only because of the intervention of G.O.MS.No.56, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Deparmtnet dated 17.04.2012) as per the above stated provisions, the inter-se seniority has to be determined with reference to Section 40(2) of the aforesaid Act [formerly, 35(aa) of the aforesaid Rules], provided they had the requisite qualification.

299. Having traced out the entire history with regard to the appointment of the ‘Promotees’ and ‘Direct Recruitees’ to the post of ‘Assistants’ in the Respondent Department and the factual background of the case and having considered the service jurisprudence and decision of the Writ Court in the above Writ Petition and particularly the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred hereto, I am of the view that the Impugned 224 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 Order dated 03.03.2022 of the Writ Court suffers from several infirmities making it susceptible to a valid challenge in these Writ Appeals.

300. Therefore, the Impugned Order of the Writ Court in our view is unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. Further, the Appellants/Private Respondents, as also the other ‘Promotees’ would have cleared the examinations as is contemplated in Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service Rules while serving as ‘Junior Assistants’.

While, the Private Respondents (Writ Petitioners/Direct Recruits) should have completed / qualified themselves in these tests before their names could have been included in the ‘Seniority List’ for the purpose of Section 2(c) read with Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, formerly, Rule 4 of Part II of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules.

301. In the result, the Impugned Order of the Writ Court is set aside and the Writ Appeals are allowed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 [C.S.N., J.] 29.4.2025 jas Neutral Citation : Yes / No 226 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 To:

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

and C.SARAVANAN, J.

jas 227 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 W.A.Nos.2308 & 1027 of 2022 29.4.2025 W.A.Nos.2308 and 1027 of 2022 S.S. SUNDAR, J.

and C. SARAVANAN, J.

[Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.] 228 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm ) WA.Nos.1027 & 2308/2022 In view of the dissenting judgments, the matter is directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 08:36:11 pm )