MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WP No. 31583 of 2024 AND WMP Nos.34323, 34324 and 34326 of 2024 R.Rajendran … Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Chief Secretary, Public (Special-A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on :25.07.2025
Pronounced on :12-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 31583 of 2024
AND
WMP Nos.34323, 34324 and 34326 of 2024
R.Rajendran … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Chief Secretary, Public (Special-A) Department, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
… Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the order of the 1st respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.600, public (Special-A) Department, dated 31.08.2024, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to accord placement in the 2013 – 2014 panel as per G.O.Ms.No.345, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 12.07.2023 and to extend all service benefits including inclusion in the select list – 2023 for State Civil Services.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Raman, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Balamurugan
For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen,
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi,
Special Govt. Pleader *****
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the order of the first respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.600, public (Special-A) Department, dated 31.08.2024, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to accord placement in the 2013 – 2014 panel as per G.O.Ms.No.345, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 12.07.2023 and to extend all service benefits including inclusion in the select list – 2023 for State Civil Services.
2.The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition is as follows:
The writ petitioner joined in the Government Service on 22.10.2001 as Sub Registrar. Consequent upon the notification, calling for Group-I service, the petitioner took part in the selection process and got selected. However, due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the Registration Department, the petitioner was not provided with the appointment order along with his batchmates and has been appointed later vide order dated 20.01.2014. Even thereafter, an FIR was registered against him and also a charge was framed under Section 17(a). Based on the above development, he was denied promotion, and only on 15.02.2024, he was promoted as District Revenue Officer. According to the petitioner, since the disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case were subsequently quashed, his seniority should have been notionally restored in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.345, dated 12.07.2023, where his seniority was corectly fixed below one Revathi and above Tmt.Gandhimathi. However, vide G.O.Ms.No.600 dated 31.08.2024, his seniority was wrongly revised and was placed along with 2016-2017 panel, instead 2013-2014 panel.
3.Heard Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are absolutely no violations on the part of the petitioner at any stage of his carrear. For one reason or other, the petitioner’s appointment, probation and promotion got delayed on account of pendency of criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings. It is the specific submission of the learned Senior Counsel that all those disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings had got quashed and therefore, the petitioner has to be construed as a person of unblemished service record. However, due to the delay in consideration for promotion, his seniority was not restored along with his batchmates in the panel year 2013-2014 as ordered in G.O.Ms.345, dated 12.07.2023. Hence, prayed to allow this writ petition.
5.Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned
Additional Advocate General and would contend that, Rule 2 of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Service Rule, states that appointment to the category of District Revenue Officer, is a selection post, and the promotion to the post shall be made on the basis of merit and ability and the seniority being considered only if merit and ability is approximately equal. It is the further contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that any panel prepared or revised will have a shelf life of one year and would lapse on the expirty of one year. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the petitioner cannot be considered for the panel year of 2013-2014 as there were disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings against him, and furthermore, his probation also got delayed on account of disciplinary proceedings. It is his further contention that the settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of time, that too, in the absence of the other affected persons as party to the writ petition. It is the further contention of the
learned Additional Advocate General that when the Rule had been specifically provided that the promotion is based on the basis merit and ability, and when such Rule has not been challenged, the petitioner cannot seek a promotion as a matter of right based upon his original seniority. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the following judgments:
(i)In PRAFULLA KUMAR SWAIN -V- PRAKASH CHANDRA
MISRA AND OTHERS, reported in (1993) SUPP(3) 181.
(ii)In OM PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA -V- STATE OF M.P.AND
ANOTHER, reported in (2005)(11) SCC 488.
(iii)In M.P.CHANDORIA -V- STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
reported in (1996)(11) SCC 173.
(iv)In CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND OTHERS -V- C.R.RANGADHAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in (1997)(6)SCC 623.
(v)In HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER -V-
A.K.MAHAJAN AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 12 SCC 62.
(vi)In STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS -v- HARISH CHANDRA
AND OTHERS, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309.
(vii)In SURESH -V- YEOTMAL DISTRICT CENTRAL
COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 558.
(vii)In STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER -V- MADAN
MOHAN JOSHI AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 6 SCC 797.
(viii)In SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA AND OTHERS -V-
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471.
(ix)In R.S.MAKASHI AND OTHERS -V- I.M.MENON AND
OTHERS reported in (1982) 1 SCC 379.
Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
7.The factual aspects is not in serious dispute.
8.According to G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 12.07.2023, the Government has rearranged the seniority in accordance with the original merit in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Superme Court in P.Madhu -v- K.Nanthakumar and Ors., vide order dated 18.04.2023 in Cont.P(Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021 in SLP (C) No.2886 of 2016 batch. According to the above G.O, the petitioner’s seniority was fixed below one Tmt.Revathi and above Tmt.Gandhimathi. But subsequently after issuing a show cause notice, the respondents had revised the seniority vide G.O.Ms.No.600 dated 31.08.2024 and placed the petitioner in the 2016-2017 year panel. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said G.O for easy understanding:

9.The Tabular Column, which provided in Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the above G.O., had indicated why the petitioner could not be considered for the 2013 – 2014 year panel. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in Registration Department in the year 2001. While he was serving in the Registration Deparrtment,, he wrote Group-I examination during 2007, and though he got selected, due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings in his first posting namely Registration Departement, the issuance of posting order was delayed and eventually the same was issued on 20.01.2014, after the petitioner was discharged from all the charges.
10.Therefore, admittedly there are no punishment or any other adverse order passed against the petitioner in his previous department. Unfortunately, after he joined in the Revenue Department, again a criminal case was filed against him in connection with his alleged irregularity in the Registration Department. But the same was subsequently quashed in Crl.O.P.No.18586 of 2016, vide order dated 15.11.2019. Thereafter, he again faced a set back through a charge framed against the petitioner under section 17(a). Even that 17(a) charge, dated 31.08.2017 was subsequently dropped on 10.11.2023, in proceedings No.nr.K.M.vz.;gzp 2(1) / 32383 / 2019. Therefore, though there were criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings all those things were melt in to insignificance, and he came out with flying colours.
11.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the main contention put-forth by the learned Additional Advocate General. He would contend that the promotion to the post of DRO, is based upon the merit and ability. But, before delve into this aspects, it is relevant to discus certain legal provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 hereinafter called “Act”. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract Sections 40 & 41 of the Act:
“40. Fixation of seniority.
(1)The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined in the order of his placement in the list prepared by the recruitment agency or appointing authority, as the case may be, in accordance with the rule of reservation and the order of rotation specified in Schedule-V, where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority.
(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 services, class, category or grade:Provided that where the junior appointed by a particular method of 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 the service, class, category or grade on the same day, their interse-seniority shall be decided with reference to their age.
(3)The transfer of a person from one class or category of a service to another class or category carrying the same scale of pay or pay band shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purpose of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the rank in the class or category from which he was transferred; where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this provision, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority.
(4)Where a member of any service, class, category or grade is reduced to a lower service, class, category or grade he shall be placed at the top of the latter unless the authority ordering such reduction directs that he shall take rank in such lower service, class, category or grade, next below any specified member thereof.
(5)The seniority of any person in a service or post of the merged territory of Pudukkottai, who is absolutely in a service or post under the Government of Tamil Nadu shall be determined as follows:-
(i)If he is absorbed in a post similar to that which he was formerly holding in the service of the merged territory of Pudukkottai, his seniority shall be determined by the date from which he was holding the former post continuously.
(ii)If he is absorbed in a post of a higher cadre carrying a higher scale of pay than that which he was formerly holding in the service of the merged territory of Pudukottai his seniority shall be determined by the date on which he joined the post under the Government of Tamil Nadu.
(iii)If he is absorbed in a post other than those specified in clauses (i) and (ii), which does not improve his cadre and scale of pay in the service of the merged territory of Pudukottai, his seniority shall be determined on the basis of merit.
(6)Application for the revision of seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service, class, category or grade or within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority, as the case may be. Any application received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. This shall not, however, be applicable to cases of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts.”
41. Promotion.
(1)No member of a service or class of a service shall be eligible for promotion from the category in which he was appointed to the service unless he has satisfactorily completed his probation in that category:Provided that a member of a service or class of a service who, having satisfactorily completed his probation in the category in which he was appointed to the service, has been promoted to the next higher category shall, notwithstanding that he has not been declared to have satisfactorily completed his probation in such higher category be eligible for promotion from such higher category :Provided further that if the scale of pay or pay band of posts in the feeder categories are different, the persons holding post carrying a higher scale of pay or pay band in the feeder category shall be considered first and that, if no qualified and suitable persons holding post in that feeder category are available, the persons holding post carrying the next higher scale of pay or pay band in descending order in other feeder categories shall be considered.
(2)Promotions in a service or class to a selection category or to a selection grade shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority, being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. The inter-se-seniority among the persons found suitable for such promotion shall be with reference to the inter-se seniority of such persons in the lower post.
(3)Promotions made other than to a selection category or a selection grade shall be made in accordance with seniority unless-
(i)the promotion of a member has been withheld as a penalty, or
(ii)a member is given special promotion for conspicuous merit and ability.
12.According to Section 40(1), the seniority of a person in a service to be determined in the order of his placement in the list prepared by the recruitment agency or appointing authority, and that the date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority. Therefore, not withstanding the date of joining, the seniority of a person is according to the list prepared by the recruitment agency. But, the issue before this Court is in respect of seniority of the petitioner in the promotional post. The petitioner’s original seniority was denied on the ground that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Collector at a later point of time ie., on 07.12.2014, though his batchmates joined on 08.12.2009 and was confirmed in the post of Deputy Collector on
09.12.2011. It was further mentioned that petitioner’s batchmates were included in the DRO panel in the year 2013. Whereas he was included in the panel 2019 -2020 and the appointment of DRO was also delayed to the petitioner qua till 08.04.2020, whereas his batchmates were appointed on 15.02.2014. But, admittedly the petitioner was not a cause for such delay, it had happened only because of certain false charge framed against the petitioner and a frivolous FIR registered against him, which was subsequently quashed and discharged by competent Courts and authorities respectively.
13.It is the contention of the learned Additional Advocae General that the post of DRO is not a seniority based post and it is based on merit and ability. He would further contend that the authority, based up on the merit and ability, has considered his batchmates at the earlier point of time. Based on such submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the petitioner cannot seek for any revision of seniority. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer that even according to the G.O., impugned there is no reference as to why the petitioner is less meritorious to deny him to keep along with 2013 – 2014 year panel. While we speak about the merit, referred to in the service rule, there are no further elaboration on that aspect and apart from that, the merit refer to for the promotion generally a threshold merit and if a person achieved threshold merit, he has to be considered for promotion though the other person has got higher score at the feeder level. Here, no scrap of paper submitted before the Court as to the rule or procedure to determine merit and ability. Unless there are no rule to determine the merit and ability, the mere reference that this petitioner is les meritorious is nothing but self serving statement.
14.A hormonious reading of G.O.Ms.No.600, would demonstate that the delay had occurred to the petitioner in his appointment, probation and promotion only on account of the intervening disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings. Had there been, no criminal or disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner would have been appointed and considered for promotion along with other batchmates. Therefore, as contended by the petitioner there are no records available before this Court to bring the petitioner as less meritorious. It is well settled principles of law that whenever, the promotion is deferred on account of filing of the charge sheet before the competent criminal Court, suspension or a charge memorandum issued against the deliquent, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments a procedure like that of the sealed cover procdure has to be adopted. In the case in hand, if such procedure had been adopted at every level, since no charge has been proved against the petitioner, his seniority must have been notionally fixed along with his batchmates, in accordance with his original seniority by placing him at correct position. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the revised seniority published by the respondent in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Mathu’s case(cited supra), in G.O.Ms.No.345 dated 12.07.2023, is in accordance with law.
15.Before we proceed further, let us consider the judgment relied by the respondent to support their case. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prafulla
Kumar Swain-V-Prakash Chandra Misra and others, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 181, a three Judge Bench decision, wherein it has been held that the period of training will not be count for service. However, such observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of Regulation 12(c) of relevant Service Rules, and upon a peculiar circumstances of execution of bond by the employee concerned admitting that his date of appointment will be after the date of completion of training. Only based upon such factual position, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as above. Thus, the above judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
16.The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shrivastava -V- State of M.P. And another, reported in (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 488 and would contend that the seniority has to be construed from the date of expiry of normal period of probation. But that is not a rule in Tamil Nadu Government Service(condition of Service) Act, 2016. According to the Act, the seniority is based upon the list prepared by the recruitment agency. Therefore, this ruling is also not applicable to the present facts of the case.
17.Even the facts of M.P.Chandoria case (cited supra), relied by the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same not arising from a case against the Tamil Nadu Service (condition of Service) Act, 2016 or against a pari materia Act. Even the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi and another -v- A.K.Mahajan and others, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 62, relied by the respondent is not useful to the present facts of the case as the above judgment deals about the, retrospective and retroactive nature of the Delhi High Court Service Rules.
18.The learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon the Suresh case, as well as Madan Mohan Joshi and others case(cited supra), and would contend that unless the necessary parties are impleaded viz., the affected persons qua the batchmates of the petitioner the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. But, the above judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case as in Suresh’s case, the seniority was challenged on the ground of doubtfull eligibility of the person, who already got promoted. The respondents also relied yet another similar judgment in State of Uttranchal and another -v- Madan Mohan Joshi and Others, reported in (2008)6 SCC 797, in the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon in A.Janarthanan -v- State of Union reported in (1983) 3 SCC 601 and has held that if no relief claimed againt the individual then the question of impleading them does not arise.
19.In the case in hand, the petitioner neither challenged the eligibility of his batchmates, nor he has asked any relief against any individual. But his only concern is that he must be placed in 2013 – 2014 panel. Therefore, the non impleadment of others, will have no implication or impact in the present case. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that on account of delay and latches, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. But, this Court would respectfully disagree with the above submission, as in the case in hand, the respondent had revised the seniority based upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.07.2023 and placed the petitioner above one Smt.Gandhimathi, and they have erroneously revised the same only on 31.02.2025. Aggrieved the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition immediately. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no delay and latches depriving the petitioner to get the relief. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the precedent relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts of the case, and as already observed once the charges are not proved and the criminal cases are quashed, the petitioner has to be notionally placed above his immiediate junior and below his immediate senior, as if there were no charge framed against him. Except the above quashed criminal proceedings and the dropped
departmental proceedings, no other ground raised against the petitioner to deny his prayer.
20.In the case in hand, what the petitioner want is, seniority fixed in G.O.Ms.No.345, dated 12.07.2023 has to be sustained, as the Government has rightly refixed his seniority in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on that date there were no civil, criminal or disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner. In view of this Court detail discussion made herein above, this Court find justification in the petitioner’s submission.
21.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and G.O.Ms.No.600, public (Special-A) Department, dated 31.08.2024 is quashed, as a consequence the respondents are directed to accord placement in the 2013 – 2014 panel as per G.O.Ms.No.345, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 12.07.2023 and to extend all service benefits including notional promotion, except the monetary benefit and the petitioner is eligible for monetary claim only from the date of his actual promotion. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed.
12.09.2025
Ns
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Chief Secretary, Public (Special-A) Department, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Ns
Pre-Delivery Order in
WP.No.31583 of 2024
12.09.2025