WP/26256/2022 of K.Panneerselvam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 16 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order viz., G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 23.06.2011 and the consequential order issued by the 2nd respondent on 24.05.2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on 07.02.1995 and that he is eligible for the promotion to the post of Junior Assistant/Record Clerk as per G.O.Ms.No.150 MAWS Department dated 19.08.1998. It is also his contention that the post of Junior Assistant and Bill Collector have been provincialized the appropriate amendment by bringing the post under the esteemed service. It is the further submission of the petitioner that, as per G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 19.08.1998, 20% of vacancies to be filled up to the post of Junior Assistant cum Typist and Bill Collector in Town Panchayat by giving promotion to the eligible persons working in non provincialized post in Town Panchayat Service. The learned counsel would further submit that vide order dated 23.06.2011, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant for the panel year 2008-2009. Whereas in the order, the 2nd respondent had fixed the seniority from the date of appointment and thereby, his seniority is seriously affected. It is also his contention that though there was a vacancy during 2008-2009, on account of not processing the appointment process within time frame, and in the meanwhile on appointment of direct recruits, the petitioner’s seniority got affected and has caused serious prejudice. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that though he was promoted on 23.06.2011, his seniority has to be recorded from the panel year 2008-2009. Hence, prayed to quash G.O.Ms.No.85, MAWS Department dated 23.06.2011 to the extent of his appointment and the rejection order dated 24.05.2022.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would strongly oppose the above contention and would contend that G.O.Ms.No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19.08.1998 had only reserved 20% of the vacancies in Bill Collector/Junior Assistant to be filled by transfer of service among the non provincialized employees as per the District Level Seniority. It is also the contention that though the G.O. has given mode of consideration, it has not given the cut-off date for the appointment and that they need reasonable time to prepare the panel and they must get approval from the TNPSC. Only after the approval of TNPSC, the appointment can be finalized. Therefore, mere existence of vacancy at the relevant point of time will in no way confer any vested right upon the petitioner to claim seniority. It is also the contention that having accepted the G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 23.06.2011, till 2015, filing the writ petition during 2016 would be hit by the doctrine of latches. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

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

6. The short point to be considered in the present Writ Petition is that, can the petitioner be considered for the seniority of the year of 2008-2009 though he was promoted subsequently, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.85 dated

23.06.2011?. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon the G.O.Ms.No.150 MAWS Department dated 19.08.1998. In the above G.O., if there is a reservation of not less than 20% of the vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant, Typist and Bill Collector to be filled up through the persons those who are serving as Office Assistant, Record Assistant and other similar Grade posts. While closely analysing the above G.O.Ms.No.150, the 20% reservation in the post of Junior Assistant and Typist has only be considered as a transfer of service and the economics of the employer needs attention. But, not considered as a promotional post. No doubt, according to the above G.O., the panel for vacancy was directed to be identified every year, but, it’s silence as to seniority and time of appointment needs serious consideration.

7. It is well settled principle of law that, mere existence of a vacancy of a particular year does not mandate or compel the employer to fill such vacancy every year. It is for the employer to decide as to how, when and why such appointment should take place. Behind every appointment, if there is any mala fide on the part of the employer, the employee can question the same. But, in the case in hand, even according to G.O.Ms.No.150 MAWS

Department dated 19.08.1998, the mere existence of vacancy by itself not entailing those who are working as Record Assistants and Record Clerks to have an automatic consideration for transfer of service. The Authority has to follow various steps and procedure and only on the approval of TNPSC, they would be considered for appointment.

8. As already stated, the G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 19.08.1998 does not refer about the word Promotion, but only says, transfer of service. Therefore, the mere existence of a vacancy cannot give any vested right to the employees to claim the transfer of service to the vacancies. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer the judgment of this Court in A.Mariappan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others [WP.No.32745 of 2007 dated 20.08.2024], where the learned Single Judge while referring the very same G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 19.08.1998, in the backdrop of Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, held that the respondents are though under the obligation to prepare a panel of approved candidates every year based upon the vacancies, the Rule does not mandate that the respondent/State should fill up the vacancies during the relevant panel year.

9. The Court has also held that whether to fill up the vacancy at the relevant point of time or not is for the respondent/State to decide. Admittedly, in the case in hand, there is no Rule mandating the respondent/State to fill up the vacancies on year on year basis. To put it differently, there is no rule to fill the vacancies, that are existing/arising in a panel year in the very same panel year. In the absence of any specific Rules, the petitioner cannot claim such right as a matter of right. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the relevant portions of the above judgment:- “7. The petitioner was appointed to Ministerial service i.e., 'Junior Assistant/ Bill Collector' through G.O (Ms) No.174, dated 11.11.2013. Through the very Government Order, the petitioner was categorically informed that the seniority of the petitioner has to be fixed from the date of his appointment in the 'Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service'. Though, the petitioner availed the benefit of the said Government Order, he has not chosen to question the said restriction imposed on him to claim seniority only from the date of his appointment in the 'Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service'. However, he made a claim for promotion/ appointment by transfer to the post of 'Junior Assistant' from the panel year 2004-2005. The basis for making such a claim is that in terms of Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Services Rules, the respondents are under obligation to prepare a panel of approved candidates every year basing upon the vacancies available and the vacancies that are likely to arise during the panel year and operate the said approved list for filling up of vacancies and such an obligation cast on the respondents is a mandatory requirement, but because of the failure on the part of the respondents to discharge their duties under Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Services Rules, the petitioner is put to loss and forced to lose his seniority.

8. No doubt, in terms of Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, there is an obligation cast on the respondents to prepare a panel of approved candidates every year. The very same Rule also provides for inclusion of approved candidates who could not be appointed during the relevant panel year for the next panel year along with other eligible candidates and so on and so forth. Though the said Rule mandates for preparation of panel every year, there is no mandate that the respondent/ State should fill-up all the vacancies that are existing during that panel year with the approved candidates included in the said panel. Whether to fill- up the vacancies at the relevant point of time or not is for the respondent/ State to decide. There is no Rule that mandates the respondent/ State to fill-up the vacancies that are existing/ arising in a panel year in the very same panel year.”

10. Even the Division Bench of this Court, in A.Kanagamuthu and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [W.A.No.524 of 2020] vide order dated 28.04.2023 has also approved the similar proposition. Here, while looking into the State wide seniority list, no doubt the petitioner’s seniority is drastically affected on account of delay in processing the appointment by transfer. But, in view of the absence of Rule, the petitioner cannot seek the retrospective seniority as a matter of right. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merits in the present writ petition.

11. In the result, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the respondents 1 & 2 are directed to frame Rule to alleviate and assuage the grievance of the petitioner and similarly situated persons, within a period of six(6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are also closed. 16-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

2. The Director of Town Panchayats M.R.C. Nagar Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028

3. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 26256 of 2022 AND WMP NOS.16727 OF 2026 & 25340 OF 2022 16-09-2026