Sekarreporter 1: For petitioners : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan, AAG, Assisted by : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, AGP for R1&R2 : Mr.A.Palaniappan for RR4 to 22 : No appearance for R3 [3/4, 07:18] Sekarreporter 1: In a case relating to fixation of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in Registration Department, Hon”ble Mr.Justice V.Parthiban, in his detailed judgement, observed and held

[3/4, 07:18] Sekarreporter 1: For petitioners : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for

Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy

For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan, AAG, Assisted by

: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, AGP for R1&R2

: Mr.A.Palaniappan for RR4 to 22

: No appearance for R3
[3/4, 07:18] Sekarreporter 1: In a case relating to
fixation of inter se seniority between direct
recruits and promotees in Registration Department, Hon”ble Mr.Justice V.Parthiban, in his detailed judgement, observed and held:

The age old and the never ending controversy in the service
jurisprudential landscape, constantly engaging the attention of the Courts over six decades, is the fixation of inter se seniority between direct
recruits and promotees. The fixated controversy refusing to die down
despite the rulings of this Court in multitude of litigations over the years
and each time, when a resolution is found by the Courts, yet, the dispute
manifests in variegated and kaleidoscopic form, shape and colour, from
time to time and bounce back to the Courts seeking its attention all over
again. The Courts painstaking efforts notwithstanding in laying down
definite legal principles on the vexed issue, nevertheless, the dispute
crawl back re-engaging the Courts, every now and then, at various points
of time. The issue has been constantly engaging the attention of the
Courts periodically for the last few decades, despite a Constitution Bench
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court formulating the legal principles
to be applied to various contingencies that may arise in the matter of
inter se fixation of seniority as between direct recruits and promotees.
Finding a panacea has always been elusive, a conundrum each time and
any order, direction or ruling on the issue, hold the field only upto a
transitional point of time. It gets a new avatar after sometime and land
on the lap of the Courts for its intervention, again and again
interminably, having no end at all.

The present dispute is one more to be added to the multitude
of litigations, yearning for judicial remedy. The petitioners herein are the
direct recruits and the respondents 3 to 22 are the promotees at
loggerheads in the matter of fixation of inter se seniority between them.

The issue raised in this writ petition is pure and simple and
can be put in a straight jacket perspective as to whether in the facts and circumstances, the private respondents can said to be appointed as

Assistants on regular basis in terms of the rule position, justifying their
seniority position over and above the petitioners or not?

From the detailed factual narrative as above, the dates of
appointment of the petitioners and the private respondents are not in
dispute. The dispute is only with reference to retrospective regularization
of the private respondents as Junior Assistants and the consequential
grant of retrospective promotion as Assistants and the attendant benefit
of seniority from 2010 or so. In order to deal with the rival contentions,
with reference to the core consideration of this Court, it is essential that
the technical objections raised on behalf of the respondents need to be
addressed first to clear the path towards unraveling of the nucleus of the
lis before this Court.

Heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General for
the official respondents and Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the
private respondents viz., the respondents 4 to 22.

The relevant rules relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners read with the legal principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, fully support the claim of the
petitioners herein as against the private respondents. The learned counsel
for the private respondents made another submission about the issuance
of subsequent G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 17.04.2012, Personnel
Administrative Reforms Department. The order sought to amend the
special rules for any Ministerial Services in respect of Registration
Department on filling up 50% of the vacancy in the post of Assistant by
direct recruitment. The learned counsel referred to paragraph No.9 of the
Order which mandate the fixation of inter se seniority between directly
recruited Assistants and the Assistants by promotion, which is extracted
hereunder:

“9.The inter se seniority between the directly
recruitd Assistants and the Assistants appointed by
promotion shall be as per the provisions laid down in
Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State
and Subordinate Services.”

According to the learned counsel, as per the above amendment, the date of appointment is a crucial factor for determining the inter se seniority. This Court has no quarrel with the submission of
the learned counsel. The Rule 35(aa) and the replaced Section 40(1) &
(2) of the Act, 2016, have already been referred to and considered earlier
in this decision.

In any event, as far as the recruitment of these petitioners is
concerned, they were appointed in pursuance of the notification issued
by the Commission dated 30.12.2010. All of them have been
accommodated in the quota meant for them in terms of the
aforementioned two Government Orders. In that context, there is no legal
significance of G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 17.04.2012, in respect of the
petitioners’ claim in the writ petition.

For the above said reasons, the impugned proceedings
bearing Ref.No.21380/nf1/2016, dated 07.06.2016 and consequential impugned seniority list bearing Ref.No.18/nf1/2018, dated 02.02.2018 are hereby set aside.
The official respondents are directed to prepare a fresh
seniority list and assign proper seniority as between the petitioners and
the private respondents herein in terms of the above ruling of this Court.