WP/16525/2024 of M.ARUMUGAM Vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT on 15 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to refix the petitioner’s seniority next to Mr. R.Thirupathi (Serial No. 15) vide G.O. Ms. Nos. 383, 389 and 390 dated 27.12.2023 issued by the 1st respondent for the post of Chief Accounts officer and refix the same to the next level of post of Joint Director vide the petitioner’s representations dated 23.03.2024, 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in a recruitment process that had taken place during 2009 for the post of Class III Officers for the Tamil Nadu State Treasuries. In the Selection process, he was selected and appointed on 13.05.2010 with a condition that he should undergo six months training and two years probation period, and he completed the probation period on 13.05.2012. After 10 years, when the promotion panel was prepared for the post of Joint Director viz., on 13.05.2023 the respondents 3 & 4 viz., Tmt.Seema Scaria and P.Jameela were placed above the petitioner. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 13.05.2010. whereas the respondents 3 and 4 were appointed on 14.09.2012 and 07.02.2011. Therefore, having the respondents 3 and 4 were appointed on a subsequent date, they cannot be placed above the petitioner. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 16.09.2026 made in The State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs.G.Damodran and others reported in 2026 MHC 3866. Hence, prayed to issue a Mandamus so as to consider his representations.

4. The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Special Government Pleader and would contend that according to G.O.Ms.No.383, 389 and 390 dated 27.12.2023, in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021 dated 18.04.2023, based upon the letter received from the TNPSC, they have revised the seniority in accordance with merits. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that by virtue of Bimlesh Tanwar Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that the merit should be the criteria in fixing the seniority and directed the recruiting agency to fix seniority on the basis of the merit, for such revision, a cut-off date qua 10.03.2003 was fixed. The petitioner’s selection process took place during 2009. Therefore, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on receipt of communication of the TNPSC vide their letter dated 01.06.2023, seniority based on merits was refixed. It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that, according to the merits, this petitioner has come below the respondents 3 & 4. Apart from that, it is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner comes below the respondents 3 & 4, his original seniority as per communal roster 7 was revised to 4. Therefore, even by virtue of revision of merit based seniority, the petitioner has nothing to lose. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

5. In addition to the above submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4 would submit that, since the 3rd respondent was an employee of the Central Government, there were some issues at the time of the subject recruitment. Therefore, she preferred a writ petition in WP.No.21937 of 2009, wherein this Court has passed an interim order to reserve one post for her and ultimately, directed to consider the 3rd respondent for recruitment if she otherwise comes within the zone of consideration vide order of this Court dated 29.08.2011. In respect of the 4th respondent, TNPSC had raised an issue with regard to the community certificate and that the same was later resolved after some time. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 that, the respondents 3 & 4 are more meritorious than this petitioner and that when there is a direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to revise seniority, this petitioner cannot have any grievance, so as to consider his representations.

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

7. Admittedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021 dated 18.04.2023, has directed to revise the seniority on the basis of merit, in all the Tamil Nadu Government Departments. For such revision, a cut-off date was fixed as 10.03.2003 being the date of the judgment of Bimlesh Tanwar [cited supra]. According to the Supreme Court order dated 18.04.2023, wherever the recruitment takes place on or after 10.03.2003, the seniority has to be refixed based on merits. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not disputed with regard to the merit of the respondents 3 and 4. However, his submission is that, the respondents 3 & 4 were appointed at a later point of time qua 07.02.2011 and 14.09.2012.

8. As rightly contended by the respondents 3 and 4, the 3rd respondent was appointed subsequent to the intervention of this Court in WP.No.21937 of 2009 and as per the interim order, one post was reserved for her. In respect of the 4th respondent, TNPSC has withheld the results on account of verification of community certificate, which was later verified and confirmed the petitioner’s claim. Therefore, they being the recruitees of the same selection process qua in a same batch, the placement by way of revision of seniority in accordance with the merits is nothing, but the implementation of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which action cannot be faulted with.

9. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Damodran’s case [cited supra], this is a case where the petitioner seeks promotion on account of certain delay on the part of the respondent-authority, where this Court has held that the promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Whereas, in the case in hand, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, the Government itself has relaxed certain eligibility criteria which the petitioner has taken into consideration while explaining the delay in appointment. Therefore, this Court cannot find any reason to re-look the revision of seniority

10. In such view of the above position, this Court does not find any merits in the present writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI To

1. The Principal Secretary To Government Finance (Treasuries And Accounts -1) Department Government Of Tamil nadu Namakkal Kavignar Maligai Fort St George Chennai 600 009

2. The Commissioner Of Treasuries And Accounts Integrated Complex For Finance Department 3rd Floor, Veterinary Hospital Campus, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai 600 035.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 16525 of 2024 AND WMP NO. 18121 OF 2024 15-10-2026