HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W. P.No.17544 of 2024and W.M.P.Nos.19328 & 19347 of 2024 1.Senthilvadivu, W/o.Newton, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.

2025:MHC:2356
Reserved on:
28.08.2025 Pronounced on:
10.10.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W. P.No.17544 of 2024and
W.M.P.Nos.19328 & 19347 of 2024
1.Senthilvadivu,
W/o.Newton,
Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
2.Thilagavathy Segar,
W/o.Segar,
Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
3.Muganthi,
W/o.Moovendiran, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
4.Indirani,
W/o.Periyasamy, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
5.Rani,
W/o.Sakthivel,
Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry. .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Director, JIPMER, Puducherry.
2.The Deputy Director, (Administration), JIPMER, Puducherry.
3. V.Buvaneswari,
W/o.Velmurugan, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
4. V.Sivasankari,
W/o.Vikraman,
Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
5. V.Vimala,
W/o.Venkatachalam, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
6. K.Djeasoudha,
W/o.Velmourougane, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
7.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
8.RamaniSrinith,
W/o.Saravanan, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
9.SumathiVelayudam,
W/o.Velayutham, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
10.Thilagavathy,
W/o.Thanigachalam,
Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
11.Castoury,
W/o.Saravanan,
Nursing Sister, JIPMER,
Puducherry. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 7th respondent relating to the order passed by the 7th respondent Tribunal passed in T.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 29.02.2024 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to prepare a fresh panel of seniority in the cadre of Nursing Sister by placing the petitioners above the respondents 3 to 6 according to their seniority in the said cadre and promote the petitioners as Deputy Nursing Superintendent.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Chandrasekaran
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.M.T.Arunan Standing Counsel
For RR 3 to 6 : Mr.K.M.Ramesh Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Shanmugam
For R7 : Tribunal
For RR 8 to 10 : No appearance
For R11 : Died
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
The petitioner seeks for the following relief:
“to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 7th respondent relating to the order passed by the 7th respondent Tribunal passed in T.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 29.02.2024 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to prepare a fresh panel of seniority in the cadre of Nursing Sister by placing the petitioners above the respondents 3 to 6 according to their seniority in the said cadre and promote the petitioners as Deputy Nursing Superintendent.”
2.The petitioners had approached this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.30231 of 2013. This Court by an order dated 01.11.2018, transferred the said writ petition to the file of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) at Chennai. The transfer was effectuated since JIPMER had been notified as an Institution covered under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Consequent to the transfer, the writ petition filed in the year 2013 was numbered as T.A.No.1 of 2019. The relief sought for in T.A.No.1 of 2019 (W.P.No.30231 of 2013) is as follows:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue “WRIT OF
CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS” or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to fixation of seniority of NURSING SISTER through his proceeding No Estt.24(6)/2005 dated 13.12.2011 and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned and direct the respondents 1 & 2 to prepare a fresh panel of seniority in the cadre of NURSING SISTER placing the petitioners above the respondents 3 to 6 according to their seniority in the said cadre and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.”
Facts leading to the Writ Petition
3.The petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6, the respondents 8
to 11 all belong to Scheduled Caste Community (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC Community’). The respondents 8 to 11 had originally joined the writ petitioners herein and had filed W.P.No.30231 of 2013. For the sake of convenience, they will be addressed as applicants and respondents 3 to 6 as the private respondents.
4.The applicants were appointed as Staff Nurse in 1994. Six months thereafter, the private respondents were appointed to the same post. On 19.11.2001, a seniority list was published by JIPMER. The applicants had been promoted earlier than the private respondents herein. However, due to certain orders passed thereafter, the private respondents were placed higher than the applicants. For ready understanding, a tabular column is set forth hereunder:
Sl. No. Name Date of
Joining Seniority in Staff
Nurse Date of
Promotion to Nursing
Sister Seniority in
Nursing
Sister
1. Ramani Srinith 02.09.1994 253 12.04.2006 87
2. Senthilvadivu 19.11.1994 255 12.04.2006 88
3. Thilagavathy
Segar 24.08.1994 259 12.04.2006 90
4. Castoury 26.08.1994 260 12.04.2006 91
5. Muganthi 28.09.1994 261 12.04.2006 92
6. Indirani 30.08.1994 262 12.05.2006 96
7. Sumathi
Velayudam 26.08.1994 263 15.05.2006 97
8. Rani 21.12.1994 264 15.05.2006 98
9. Thilagavathy 21.05.1995 283 16.06.2006 99
10. V.Buvaneswari 31.05.1995 284 04.01.2007 40
11. V.Sivasankari 02.06.1995 285 13.02.2009 41
12. V.Vimala 31.05.1995 286 13.02.2009 42
13. K.Djeasoudha 08.01.1996 297 13.02.2009 43
5.On account of variation in the seniority of Nursing Sisters, it gave raise to a flurry of original applications and writ petitions. We will place them in a chronological manner.
The several litigations and their results
6.The applicants herein moved the Tribunal in O.A.No.1122 of 2004. They sought a direction to JIPMER to consider and promote them to the post of Nursing Sisters against the existing as well as backlog vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST’) candidates as per roster. In all, 18 vacancies had been identified for the post of Nursing Sisters. As they were not considered, they moved the original application.
7.The Tribunal, relying upon the instructions issued with respect to promotion of SC/ST candidates, held that the applicants have to be considered in a separate list and having a separate zone of consideration. Consequently, a direction was issued to JIPMER to draw a separate list consisting of Staff Nurses belonging to SC/ST community for promotion to the post of Nursing Sisters.
8.Thereafter, JIPMER passed an order on 13.11.2006, promoting
all the applicants other than Indirani and Rani. Not wanting to be left out of the litigation game, the private respondents filed O.A.No.342 of 2006. In this application, they sought for a direction to the respondents to promote them to the post of Nursing Sister as against the available backlog SC/ST vacancies with effect from the date when the vacancies arose with consequential benefits. Their specific case was that JIPMER, despite the order passed in O.A.No.1122 of 2004 on 27.01.2006, was not preparing a separate select list for SC/ST candidates.
9.The respondents filed a counter. In the said counter, they accepted that in line with the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1122 of 2004, the private respondents (applicants therein) will be considered for promotion as and when vacancies arise in the SC category posts. The respondents also submitted that the total sanctioned strength for Nursing Sisters is 164, out of which 153 had been appointed leaving out 11. These 11 vacancies had been earmarked for ST candidates.
10.The Tribunal framed an issue whether SC candidates are eligible for consideration in vacancies meant for ST candidates and vice versa. It held that vacancies between SC and ST can be exchanged relying upon DOPT.OM.No.36012/5/97-Estt(Res.)Vol.II, dated 20.07.2000. Consequently, it gave the following direction:
“We are of the considered view that the respondents should prepare a list of SC/ST Staff Nurse as on 06.11.2003 and if no qualified ST candidates are available for promotion to the post of Nursing Sister, the same should be filled up with SC candidates and if the applicants are seniors, they should be conferred with promotion post of Nursing Sister with retrospective effect with all service benefits. We expect that this exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
11.It is pertinent to point out the inter se seniority between the writ petitioners herein and the private respondents was never a subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal. By the time the order came to be passed on 30.10.2007, the writ petitioners herein had already been promoted as Nursing Sisters.
12.The order passed in O.A.No.342 of 2006 was put to challenge in two writ petitions, namely, W.P.No.10346 of 2008 and W.P.No.20512 of 2008. The petitioners in W.P.No.10346 of 2008 were employees not belonging to SC community. The petitioners in

W.P.No.20512 of 2008 were the Union of India represented by Directorate General of Health Services and JIPMER. As both the writ petitions challenged the same order, they were clubbed together and disposed of by this Court by an order dated 11.08.2009. This Court gave the following directions:
“10.On going through the materials placed on record, we consider it appropriate, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated above, that the respondents 1, 2 and 4 are entitled for promotion from the date of their completion of 5 years of service, viz., with regard to R-1 in
W.P.No.10346 of 2008, from 31.05.2000 onwards, the date on which, R-1, who joined service on 31.05.1995, has completed 5 years of service, and with regard to R-2, from 02.06.2000 onwards, the date on which, R-2, who joined service on 02.06.1995, has completed 5 years of service and as far as R-4 is concerned, from 08.01.2001 onwards, the date on which, R-4, who joined service on 08.01.1996, has completed 5 years of service., as required under the Rules, to the post of Nursing Sister, on the ground of exchange of the posts meant for Scheduled Tribe to Scheduled Caste as per the Official Memorandum prevailing on the date, when the vacancies arose, and in view of the letter addressed by the Chief Medical Officer (Administration), dated 29.06.2004 and also in view of the reply affidavit filed in the original application. Therefore, the respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.No.10346 of 2008, who are petitioners in W.P.No.20512 of 2008, are directed to give promotion to respondents 1, 2 and 4 from the date of their completion of 5 years of service as stated above and the said exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11.The writ petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid direction. Connected M.Ps. are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.”
13.It is pertinent to point out that writ petitioners herein were not parties before the Tribunal in O.A.No.342 of 2006 or in the aforesaid writ petitions. Consequent to the directions that were given by this Court, the seniority of the private respondents was revised as follows:
Sl. No. Name of the
Staff Nurse Date of
Appointment to the post of Nursing Sister prior to the orders of the
High Court Revised date of appointment to the post of Nursing
Sister on account of implementation of the
High Court Order
1. V.Bouvaneswary 04.01.2007 31.05.2000
2. V.Sivasankari 13.02.2009 02.06.2000
3. S.Vimala 13.02.2009 31.05.2000
4. S.K.Djeasodha 13.02.2009 08.01.2001
14.On coming to know of this revision in seniority, writ petitioners immediately gave their objections, for placing the juniors above them, i.e., placing the respondents 3 to 6 above them. Noting
the mistake that had been committed, JIPMER issued a
communication to the writ petitioners stating that they will file a clarification petition before this Court in W.P.No.10346 of 2008 & W.P.No.20512 of 2008 dated 11.08.2009 and that the request of the writ petitioners that they be promoted, to the post of Nursing Sisters retrospectively, on par with the juniors against the backlog SC/ST vacancies will be considered based on the outcome of the clarificatory petition. Consequently, the seniority list was issued on 13.12.2011, placing the respondents 3 to 6 in Sl.Nos.40 to 43 and the petitioners in the seniority list as stated in the tabular column set forth above.
15.Yet again, the writ petitioners moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.673 of 2012. The prayer was as follows:
“To direct the first respondent to promote the applicants to the post of Nursing Sister with retrospective effect from the date on which the applicants completed 5 years of service in the feeder post against the SC/ST vacancies available with all consequential benefits including arrears of wages and seniority.”
16.Pending the OA, JIPMER issued a seniority list of Nursing Sisters on 12.03.2013. In this seniority list, the private respondents were shown in Sl.Nos.37 to 40 and the applicants before the Tribunal has 84 to 94. Immediately, on 15.03.2013, the 1st petitioner objected to this seniority list. She specifically pointed out that she joined JIPMER in the year 1994 an her juniors namely the private respondents who had joined much later were shown in Sl.Nos.37 to 40. She pointed out that they have joined atleast two years after she had joined duty and that both of them belong to the same SC category. Therefore, she called upon the JIPMER to revise the seniority list. JIPMER promoted the applicants to the post of Assistant Nursing Superintendent on 17.12.2013.
17.The Tribunal took up O.A.No.673 of 2012 for disposal on
14.08.2015. The Tribunal was aware to the order passed in O.A.No.1122 of 2004 as well as O.A.No.342 of 2006. However, it held that as the applicants had already been given the relief in O.A.No.1122 of 2004 and that if the applicant had any grievance with respect to the promotion granted to the private respondents, they should have approached the Tribunal in the year 2006 itself and in the year 2012. However, it held that since the applicants had succeeded in O.A.No.1122 of 2004, no relief can be granted in
O.A.No.673 of 2013. A month and few days later, JIPMER informed the applicants that their objection to the seniority will be considered subject the result of W.P.No.30231 of 2013.
18.As pointed out above, W.P.No.30231 of 2013 came to be transferred to the Tribunal in the year 2019 and numbered as T.A.No.1 of 2019. The Tribunal called upon JIPMER to file a counter.
JIPMER stated that in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.10346 of 2008 and 20512 of 2008, the respondents 3 to 6 had been given promotion to the post of Nursing Sisters with
retrospective effect. It stated that the seniority list is a valid one as it had been notified in accordance with the guidelines on seniority.
19.JIPMER relied upon the order passed in O.A.No.673 of 2012 and stated that as the OA initiated by the applicants had been dismissed, no relief can be granted to the applicants. They also pleaded that the applicants are not entitled for promotion as they were seniors to them who were available and that post the filling of the vacancies by respondents 3 to 6 with retrospective effect, only one vacancy was available.
20.Pending the OA, JIPMER issued another seniority list on
23.11.2020. This too was objected by the writ petitioners. By an order dated 21.12.2020, JIPMER rejected the objections. In the mean time, promotions had been granted and the private respondents continued to be placed above the applicants.
21.The Tribunal took up the application for hearing on 29.01.2024. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that as O.A.No.673 of 2012 had been dismissed, the applicants are not entitled to any relief in I.A.No.1 of 2019. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.
22.We heard Mr.P.Chandrasekaran for the petitioners,
Mr.M.T.Arunan, Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Shanmugam for
respondents 3 to 6.
23.Mr.P.Chandrasekaran after narrating the aforesaid facts, submitted as follows:-
(i)O.A.No.342 of 2006 did not deal with the issue of seniority, but whether the SC candidates are eligible for consideration of vacancies meant for ST candidates and vice versa.
(ii)He urged that even at the time of disposal of the said OA, the Tribunal had pointed out that while the exchange is permissible, the applicants therein should be promoted, if they are seniors.
(iii)He adds that the order passed by the Tribunal on 27.01.2006 in O.A.No.1122 of 2004, which directed the applicants to be considered in the backlog vacancy, also did not deal with the seniority between the applicants and the private respondents. It had been filed only for drawing up of a separate list of other Nurses belonging to reserved community for promotion to the post of Nursing Sisters.
(iv)He adds that when this Court passed an order on 11.08.2009, it had directed the JIPMER to grant the relief to the private respondents, but had never ordered that they be placed as seniors to the writ petitioners.
Without appreciating these facts, the Tribunal had dismissed the application and therefore, he seeks for the writ petition to be allowed.
24.Mr.M.T.Arunan, Standing Counsel states that all that the JIPMER had done was implementing the orders of this Court in
W.P.Nos.10346 of 2008 and 20512 of 2008, dated 11.08.2009. He states that JIPMER had attempted to clarify the order by way of a clarification application and that having been dismissed, the applicants are not entitled to seek revision of seniority. However, he submitted that it is not in dispute the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 are in fact seniors to the respondents 3 to 6.
25.Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel supported the order of the
Tribunal and stated that as the writ petitioners and respondents 8 to
11 did not oppose the seniority list when it was finalized in the year 2013, they are not entitled to unsettle the settled matters. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarat Chandra Mishra and others Vs. Sate of Orissa and others, (2006) 1 SCC 638 and State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, to urge that having kept quiet when the promotions were granted, the petitioners are not entitled to agitate the issue today.
26.Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel also did not dispute the fact that the writ petitioners and respondents 8 to 11 are seniors in service to the respondents 3 to 6.
27.We have carefully considered the submissions and gone through the records.
28.As recorded by us, it is not in dispute and neither can it be disputed that the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 had entered into service much before the respondents 3 to 6 had entered the portals of JIPMER. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the seniors could be placed below the juniors. The Tribunal had held that this issue had already been gone into three earlier occasions in O.A.No.1122 of 2004, O.A.No.342 of 2006 and O.A.No.673 of 2012 and thereafter, no relief can be granted to the applicants. We have gone through all the three orders. O.A.No.1122 of 2004 was not a case of fixation of seniority. The plea of the applicants therein was that a separate list must be drawn for Staff Nurses belonging to reserved community and they should be considered for promotion to the post of Nursing Sisters from the post of Staff Nurses.
29.Similarly, the order in O.A.No.342 of 2006 also did not deal with seniority. The issue as already pointed out was whether the SC candidates are eligible for consideration for vacancies meant for ST candidates and vice versa. This OA was also allowed. While allowing the OA, the Tribunal was of the view that the applicants will be entitled to the promotion “if they are seniors”. This is clear from paragraph No.8 of the order in O.A.No.342 of 2006. Nowhere did the Tribunal held that the applicants therein, who are the respondents 3 to 6 herein, are seniors to the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 herein.
30.When the matter was brought to this Court, it impugned the correctness of the order passed in O.A.No.342 of 2006. The issue of inter se seniority was never an issue before the Court. In fact, it also could not have been an issue. This is for the simple reason in W.P.Nos.10346 of 2008 and 20512 of 2008, the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 were not parties. They were not parties, since they were not made as parties in O.A.No.342 of 2006. They need not have been made as parties either because the issue as pointed out was whether an SC candidate could be appointed in ST vacancy and vice versa. This Court had dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of the Tribunal on interchangeability. However, it took note of the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.No.10346 of 2008, who are the private respondents herein that despite the interchangeability being permitted, the promotion had not been granted. Consequently, this Court directed that the private respondents 3 to 6 herein should be granted promotion on their completion of five years of service.
31.Paragraph No.10 of the order nowhere directed JIPMER to place the private respondents 3 to 6 above their seniors. While implementing the order of the Court, JIPMER committed an error in promoting the private respondents and placing them over and above the writ petitioners. It is clear from the order dated 08.12.2009 that the promotions were being granted in compliance with the order of the High Court.
32.The writ petitioners herein taking note of their juniors were stealing a march over them, objected to the same as early as on 15.03.2010. Instead of rectifying the error then and there, JIPMER issued a reply stating that their retrospective promotions on par with the juniors in the backlog vacancies will be considered depending upon the outcome of the clarificatory petition that they proposed to file. Thereafter, an application for clarification was also filed in
M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.10346 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.20512 of 2008. This Court dismissed the petitions making it clear that it is open for any person aggrieved to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance, but it is not open to the JIPMER to seek for clarification of the order. This order was passed on 24.01.2012.
33.It was thereafter O.A.No.673 of 2012 came to be filed. In this application too, all that the applicants sought for was that JIPMER should have implemented the High Court’s order by accommodating the seniors against the earlier vacancies and juniors against the subsequent vacancies. The Tribunal held that as the applicants are already strengthened by an order dated 27.01.2006 in O.A.No.1122 of 2004, there was no necessity to re-agitate the very same issue. In fine, the Tribunal had directed JIPMER to implement the order passed in O.A.No.1122 of 2004, which had gone in favour of the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 herein.
34.A perusal of the orders including of this Court shows that none of these orders have ever directed that the seniors should be placed below the juniors. No Court would also pass such a direction when the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 were not at
fault.
35.For the first time, the issue of seniority was directly in question in W.P.No.30231 of 2013. The seniority list published by the JIPMER on 12.03.2013 was put in challenge within seven months of its publication on 08.10.2013. It was this writ petition which stood transferred to the Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A.No.1 of 2019.
36.The Tribunal, instead of going into the merits of the case and deciding the issue of seniority, has perversely rendered a finding that
O.A.No.1122 of 2004, O.A.No.342 of 2006, W.P.No.10346 of 2008, W.P.No.20512 of 2008 and O.A.N.673 of 2012 dealt with the issues of seniority. At the risk of repetition, we should point out those applications and writ petitions were filed seeking for;
(i) Separate list for SC candidates;
(ii) To permit exchange of SC vacancies with ST and vice versa and grant retrospective promotion;
(iii) To promote the petitioners retrospectively, in accordance with the order passed in O.A.No.1122 of 2004.
37.At no point of time, the Tribunal in any of these proceedings
was called upon to decide the inter se seniority between the applicants, respondents 8 to 11 and the respondents 3 to 6 herein.
38.It is a settled position of law that once the seniority list is settled, the same must not be unsettled. A seniority list is said to have been settled if a person aggrieved by such a list, does not object to the list at an early date. That is not the situation in the present case. As seen from the facts, every time when a seniority list had been published by the JIPMER, the writ petitioners had objected to the same stating that they had entered into service in the year 1994 and respondents 3 to 6 entered into service two years later and therefore, they should be placed above them and not below them. It was the mistake committed by the JIPMER while implementing the communal roster of having promoted the juniors to the petitioners and having placed them above. This too was objected to immediately. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal had committed a perversity by not carefully analysing the scope of the orders passed in the previous proceedings and had concluded as if the issue had already attained finality in the earlier proceedings
39.In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 3 to 6, the fact that the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 are seniors to the respondents 3 to 6 is conceded (see, paragraph No.8). In paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, the respondents 3 to 6 state that the dismissal of O.A.No.673 of 2012 is said to be a bar to T.A.No.1 of 2019 as well as the present writ petition. We do not agree with the said submissions. This is because, as pointed out earlier, at no point of time, the three OAs and the writ petitions filed before this Court deal with the issue of inter se seniority.
40.At the pain of repetition, we should point out that none of the decisions had held the juniors of the writ petitioners and respondents 8 to 11 should be placed at a position higher than what was occupied by them. The promotions granted to the respondents 3 to 6 was on account of a mistake committed by the JIPMER. JIPMER ought to have rectified the situation the minute it came to its notice, instead it took a very peculiar stand that it had promoted the respondents 3 to 6 as per the directions of this Court. At the time of promoting the respondents 3 to 6, it should have taken into consideration there are in service seniors to them and should have granted the same benefit to them also.
41.It is settled position of law that when it comes to service matters, it is not necessary that every person should approach the Court for a relief. When the law is declared by the Constitutional Courts, it is the duty of the respondents to implement it for all persons who would be covered by the said order. See, State of Karnataka and others Vs. C.Lalitha, (2006) 3 SCC 747. The
Supreme Court held as follows:-
“Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.”
42.When the Tribunal in O.A.No.342 of 2006 had held that interchangeability of posts between SC and ST and vice versa is permissible and the same should be done in accordance with seniority, JIPMER ought to have made a separate list of SC persons in accordance with their seniority and granted the promotion to all those qualified and entitled. Instead, in an half hearted approach, it granted the benefit only to respondents 3 to 6 herein as they were the applicants before the Tribunal. The direction given by this Court in W.P.Nos.10346 of 2008 and 20512 of 2008 was taken note of the fact that respondents 3 to 6 herein despite being eligible had not been given the promotion to which they were entitled to. This order did nto direct that the promotion should be confined only to respondents 3 to 6. Neither did this Court direct that respondents 3 to 6 should be placed above their seniors. Such an order could not have also been passed as writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 were not parties to either to O.A.No.342 of 2006 or to the orders passed in the writ petition. No order pre-judicial to a party can be passed without hearing him / her.
43.Insofar as the two authorities cited by Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Counsel, in the first judgment, namely Sarat Chandra Mishra and others Vs. Sate of Orissa and others, (2006) 1 SCC 638, the Supreme Court held that the appellants are not entitled to the relief sought by them as principles of res judicata are applicable, (see Paragraph No.10). It is fundamental principle that res judicata applies where the same issue had earlier been agitated between the same parties or any parties claiming under them in an earlier litigation. We have to point out that in O.A.No.1122 of 2004, the respondents 3 to 6 were not parties. In O.A.No.342 of 2006 and W.P.Nos.10346 of 2008 and 20512 of 2008, the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 were not parties. The issues involved in those proceedings were also different. Similarly, in O.A.No.672 of 2012, though all the parties before us were also parties to that proceedings,
the issue of inter se seniority was never a subject matter of consideration. Principles of res judicata are applicable where the parties are similar and issues are similar. As the test of res judicata is not satisfied, we are not in a position to apply the judgment in Sarat Chandra Mishra’s case to the case before us.
44.In Sarat Chandra Mishra’s case, a circular had been issued by the State of Orissa setting up new principles of fixing seniority in the cadre of Lower Grade Assistants. This order was challenged by Sarat Chandra Mishra and few others in O.A.No.1200 of 1990 &
O.A.No.90 of 1990 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal clubbed both the applications together and quashed the gradation list drawn up by the State and the consequential re-fixation of seniority. This order was not challenged either by the State of Orissa or by the appellants before the Supreme Court.
45.Insofar as the judgment in State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, the benefit sought by the respondents therein were not granted, because they kept quiet for a period of six years, when a junior employee hold a promotional post for the said period till the regular promotion took place. That is not the situation in the case at hand. The writ petitioners objected the promotion granted to the respondents 3 to 6 and thereafter followed it up with W.P.No.30231 of 2013 within seven months of the said appointment. The said writ petition was pending before this Court, for nearly five years and subsequently it was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A.No.1 of 2019.
46.It was not as if the applicants kept quiet when the promotions were granted to the private respondents and approached the Court with a considerable period of delay. In the earlier part of the order, we have noted that within seven months of the promotion being granted to private respondents, the petitioners moved the writ petition challenging the fixation of seniority of Nursing Sisters on 12.03.2013. Hence, we are also not in a position to hold that the petitioners have reflected supine indifference to the promotion granted to the respondents 3 to 6.
47.The additional factor which goes in favour of the writ petitioners is that on 10.08.2010, JIPMER informed the writ petitioners and the respondents 8 to 11 that their request for refixation of seniority will be considered after the disposal of the clarificatory petitions filed by them.
48.Furthermore, the promotions granted to the respondents 3 to 6 subsequent to contempt petition filed by them in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.4 of 2007 in O.A.No.342 of 2006. In order to avoid the contempt proceedings being initiated against them, throwing seniority to the winds, JIPMER promoted the respondents 3 to 6. Apart from that, in W.P.No.10346 of 2008, this Court by an order in M.P.No.3 of 2008 dated 24.04.2008, had kept the order in abeyance. Soon thereafter, JIPMER also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20512 of 2008 and obtained interim stay in M.P.No.1 of 2008 dated 22.08.2008. It is depending on these interim orders that JIPMER did not implement the orders in O.A.No.342 of 2006 or O.A.No.1122 of 2004.
49.Till 24.01.2012, the petitioners cannot be accused of having kept quiet, because the application filed by JIPMER seeking clarification of the order passed by this Court on 11.08.2009 was kept pending. It was dismissed only on 24.01.2012. The order granting promotion to the petitioners was passed only on 17.12.2013. Immediately on the seniority list being published, the petitioners objected and approached this Court by way of a writ petition which as pointed out stood transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal.
50.The fact that the respondents 3 to 6 were granted promotion pending the litigation cannot go in their favour. Admittedly, they are juniors and they cannot claim as they have been promoted pending the litigation, they are entitled to retain the benefit thereof.
51.We are of the view that the Tribunal had not approached the aspect in the manner required as per the settled positions of law and therefore, had committed a perversity. Consequently, the order passed in T.A.No.1 of 2019 dated 29.02.2024 is set aside. The order fixing seniority dated 12.03.2013 is quashed. JIPMER shall re-do the exercise and draw a separate seniority list as directed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1122 of 2004 and fix the seniority accordingly. Consequently, JIPMER shall pass necessary orders, granting notional promotions to the applicants as Deputy Nursing Superintendents, with effect from the date on which their respective immediate juniors were promoted, together with all service and other attendant benefits. However, they shall not be eligible for arrears of salaries in the promoted post. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

(M.S.R., J) (V.L.N., J)
10.10.2025
krk
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Director, JIPMER, Puducherry.
2.The Deputy Director, (Administration), JIPMER, Puducherry.
3. V.Buvaneswari,
W/o.Velmurugan, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
4. V.Sivasankari,
W/o.Vikraman, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
5. V.Vimala,
W/o.Venkatachalam, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
6. K.Djeasoudha,
W/o.Velmourougane, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
7.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
8.RamaniSrinith,
W/o.Saravanan, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
9.SumathiVelayudam,
W/o.Velayutham, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
10.Thilagavathy,
W/o.Thanigachalam, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
M.S.RAMESH, J. and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
11.Castoury,
W/o.Saravanan, Nursing Sister, JIPMER, Puducherry.
W.P.No.17544 of 2024
10.10.2025