WP/11452/2024 of NALINI NATARAJAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 05.05.2022 passed by the second respondent.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petitions are that the petitioners were directly recruited through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), pursuant to the notifications dated 22.11.1996 and 25.06.1999. The petitioners joined the service as Scientific Assistants in

1996-1998 and 1999-2000, and their initial seniority was fixed based on communal roster points. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Scientific Assistant Grade-I and thereafter to the post of Assistant Director between 2016 and 2018. In the meanwhile, certain third parties filed a contempt petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking State-wide implementation of merit-based seniority pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC

604. Based on the contempt petition, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued a communication in Letter No.431/OTD-C1/2022, dated 22.07.2024, revising the seniority of the petitioners and other direct recruits on the basis of merit. Such revision resulted in a substantial and prejudicial alteration of the petitioners' seniority. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would specifically submit that, by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.04.2023 in Cont.P.No.6415 of 2021 in SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016, a specific cut-off date, namely, 10.03.2003, being the date of the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar’ case (cited supra), was fixed for determining the applicability of merit-based seniority. Accordingly, the seniority of candidates whose selection process was initiated on or after 10.03.2003 could be revised on the basis of merit. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that any seniority list finalised prior to 10.03.2003 ought to remain frozen and should not be disturbed. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, notwithstanding the aforesaid cut-off date, the respondent authorities revised the seniority of the petitioners, whose selection process had commenced as early as in 1996, nearly seven years prior to the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar (cited supra). Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prayed to allow these Writ Petitions.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent would contend that the third respondent, being the recruiting agency, justified the revision of seniority in view of the orders dated 18.04.2023 and 09.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021 in SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016. He would further submit that, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 18.04.2023 and the subsequent order dated 09.05.2024, the third respondent issued instructions to the first and second respondents to withdraw the refixed merit based by restoring the original roster based seniority, vide letter dated 10.07.2024. The said communication was also conveyed to the second respondent on 22.07.2024. In the meanwhile, before the second respondent could restore the original seniority, the third respondent decided to withdraw its letter dated 22.07.2024, pursuant to the resolution passed in its meeting held on 06.05.2025, based upon the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General,

6. In addition to the above submission, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would contend that, even as per the order dated 09.05.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the seniority lists published prior to 10.03.2003 were directed to remain frozen. In the present case, pursuant to the instructions issued by the third respondent, namely, the TNPSC, the second respondent revised the seniority on the basis of merit. Subsequently, though the third respondent instructed the first and second respondents to withdraw the merit-based seniority list and restore the original seniority, the said communication was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, the first and second respondents have maintained the seniority based on the communal roster, in accordance with the instructions of the TNPSC and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which directed the seniority lists finalised prior to 10.03.2003 to remain frozen. Hence, the learned Special Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petitions.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

8. The dates and events are not in dispute. The following facts are admitted: (1) The recruitment of the petitioners took place pursuant to the notifications issued by the TNPSC on 22.11.1996 and 25.06.1999. (2) It is not in dispute that the second respondent revised the seniority on the basis of merit, vide proceedings dated 05.05.2022. (3) It is also not in dispute that the third respondent initially issued instructions to withdraw the merit-based seniority list and restore the original seniority list prepared on the basis of the communal roster. (4) Subsequently, the said instructions were withdrawn based on the opinion of the learned Advocate General.

9. Now, the respondents contend that, even as per the order dated 09.05.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the seniority lists already finalised prior to 10.03.2003 are required to remain frozen. According to the respondents, since the seniority of the petitioners had already been revised on the basis of merit, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.04.2023, there was no occasion to revise the same in view of the direction dated 09.05.2024 issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021 in SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016.

10. The point that arises for consideration, is whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court intended to permit the revision of seniority in respect of recruitment processes initiated prior to 10.03.2003, qua date of the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar (cited supra). In this regard, the following aspects are relevant. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Senthur v. T.N. Public

Service Commission, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 568, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the principles governing the determination of seniority. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph 24 of the said judgment hereunder:- “24. This Court, while dismissing the SLPs against the first judgment, has clearly held that after the emergence of the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar [Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 737] , the fundamental principle governing the determination of seniority was that, it should be based on merit list of selection and that the list made on the basis of roster point, would not be permissible in law. It could thus be seen that while dismissing the SLPs, this Court has reiterated the legal position as laid down in Bimlesh Tanwar [Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 737] to the effect that while determining seniority, what is relevant is the inter se merit in the selection list and not the roster point.”

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, as per the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar (cited supra), the fundamental principle governing the determination of seniority should be the merit. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions for revising seniority on the basis of merit. Since the TNPSC and the Government did not comply with the directions,

another contempt petition was filed in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021 in SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016. In the said contempt proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 18.04.2023, observed as follows:- “12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once a law was laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court consisting of nine Judges in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India - 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217 there could not have been reservations in promotions and the appointments ought to have been on the basis of seniority as determined by the TNPSC according to merit. It is further submitted that in any case, after the judgment of this Court was delivered on 10th March, 2003, the respondent State could not have given the seniority on the basis of roster points. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that if individuals are asked to agitate their individual grievances, it would be in contravention of the view taken by the Madras High Court in the first judgment which is affirmed by this Court.

14. Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned AAG, on the contrary, submitted that by efflux of time, much water has flown. He submitted that the rights have been accrued between the parties for decades and upsetting the same at this stage would have serious repercussions. In the alternative, Shri Tiwari submitted that it will be appropriate that this Court determines the cut off date and that cut off date should be the first judgment of the Madras High Court. He further submitted that for carrying out the exercise, this Court should appoint a Committee inasmuch as 10.76 lakh cases will have to be considered. It is submitted that the State is not equipped with the machinery to complete such a herculean task.

17. We, therefore, though are not inclined to disturb the seniority lists which are finalized prior to 10th March, 2003 wherein the benefit is granted to either of the parties i.e. as per the roster or as per the seniority list, the seniority list finalized after 10th March, 2003 will have to be re-visited in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra) and the first judgement of the Madras High Court.

21. We therefore, direct the State Government to complete the exercise of finalizing the seniority lists of selection processes conducted after 10th March, 2003 on the basis of the principle that the seniority list shall be reckoned only on the basis of the merit as determined by the TNPSC in the selection process.

22. It is further made clear that if any list is finalized in case of selections held prior to 2003 giving benefit to the persons selected as per their seniority or as per merit, the same shall also not to be disturbed.”

12. From the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the Court took cognisance of the repercussions that would arise from revising the seniority of appointees across various departments. Accordingly, the relief was restricted to cases where the selection process had been conducted on or after 10.03.2003. While issuing such directions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 17, specifically observed that it was not inclined to disturb the seniority lists finalised prior to 10.03.2003.

13. In the case on hand, the seniority of the petitioners was finalised following their recruitment in 1999. The said position was reiterated in paragraph 22 of the aforesaid order, wherein it was observed that, if merit-based seniority had already been granted to any candidates even prior to 2003, the same was to be continued. However, in the present case, the initial seniority of the petitioners and the other recruits in the department of the second respondent was admittedly fixed on the basis of the communal roster.

14. In the subsequent order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021, paragraph 5 reads as follows:- “5. We do not find that any clarification of the order passed by this Court is required. The order is very clear that all such seniority lists which have been published prior to 10.03.2003 shall stand frozen. It is only the seniority lists published after 10.03.2003 that will have to be revisited in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604.”

15. A careful reading of the above observation makes it abundantly clear that, any seniority list finalised prior to 10.03.2003 is required to remain frozen. In the present case, the third respondent's communication resulted in the revision of seniority on the basis of merit, even though their selection process had commenced prior to the aforesaid cut-off date [10.03.2003]. The respondents have thereafter relied upon the expression "shall stand frozen" found in the above order, to contend that the revised merit-based seniority of the year 2022 should not be disturbed. However, such an interpretation does not appear to be in consistent with the intention underlying the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in it’s order dated 18.04.2023 & 09.05.2024, particularly when the seniority of the petitioners had originally been finalised prior to 10.03.2003.

16. The next point for consideration is whether the letter issued by the third respondent has any binding effect or whether the third respondent can issue instructions contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is well-settled principle of law that an administrative authority cannot issue instructions contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, the third respondent, without assigning any independent reasons and merely relying upon the opinion of the learned Advocate General, issued instructions to the department, leaving the affected individuals to challenge the same. Though the third respondent initially instructed the first and second respondents to restore the original seniority based on the communal roster, the subsequent withdrawal of those instructions, as discussed hereinabove appears to be contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

17. From the above discussion, it is evident that the seniority fixed in respect of a selection process initiated prior to 10.03.2003 ought not to have been disturbed and was required to remain frozen. However, it is made clear that, where merit-based seniority had already been granted to candidates prior to 10.03.2003, such seniority shall also not be disturbed. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the revision of seniority made by the second respondent on 05.05.2022 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

18. Though the other individuals whose rights may be affected have not been impleaded in the present Writ Petitions, the issue involved herein is not merely individualistic in nature. Having regard to the fact that the present proceedings concern the implementation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the firm view that the non-impleadment of the other individuals would not, by itself, preclude this Court from considering the legality of the impugned proceedings.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned proceedings dated 05.05.2022 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside, and the respondents are directed to restore the original seniority of the petitioners as it stood prior to the issuance of the impugned seniority list. The aforesaid conclusion is also supported by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.2146 and 2147 of 2023 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6548 of 2022.

20. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai- 09.

2. The Director Forensic Sciences Department, Mylapore, Chennai-04.

3. The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Park Town, TNPSC Road. V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai-03.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV Pre-Delivery order in WP Nos. 11452 and 11330 of 2024 16-10-2026