1. Seniority dispute between direct recruit Assistant Engineers and compassionate appointees regarding their ranking in a seniority list determined by the date of regular appointment. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 281
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
M. Kendra Devi - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 1918-1919 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos.31144-31145 of 2013) With Civil Appeal No(S). 1920-1922 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos.35746-35748 of 2015)
Decided On : 10-03-2022
Important Points
The seniority assigned to the compassionate appointees was in accordance with the rules and should not be disturbed at this stage.
Subject
Service Law - Seniority and Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.141, Art.16, Art.226
TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS: Reg.16(b)
TAMIL NADU STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICES RULES: R.35, R.35(a)(a)
TNPSC REGULATIONS: Reg.16(b)
TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS: Reg.16(b)
TAMIL NADU STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICES RULES: R.35, R.35(a)(a)
TNPSC REGULATIONS: Reg.16(b)
Headnote
JUDGMENT - Seniority - Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission - The court discussed the appointments made on compassionate grounds and the seniority of the candidates appointed as Assistant Engineers. The court referred to the Government Orders issued in 1981 and 1993 regarding compassionate appointments and regularizations. The court also referred to the judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, which restricted compassionate appointments to Class III and Class IV or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts. The court noted that despite this judgment, the State Government continued to make compassionate appointments in Class II posts. The court further discussed the seniority list of Assistant Engineers and the arguments raised by the appellants and respondents. The court concluded that the seniority assigned to the compassionate appointees was in accordance with the rules and should not be disturbed at this stage, considering the length of their service and the fact that they were not at fault for the appointments made on compassionate grounds. The appeals were dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed by officers who were direct recruits selected as Assistant Engineers, claiming seniority over candidates appointed on compassionate grounds. The appellants argued that the compassionate appointees were ranked senior to them in violation of the Constitution and the Rules. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants, and the appeals were filed against this decision.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seniority assigned to the compassionate appointees was in accordance with the rules and should not be disturbed at this stage.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the seniority assigned to the compassionate appointees was in accordance with the rules and should not be disturbed at this stage, considering the length of their service and the fact that they were not at fault for the appointments made on compassionate grounds. Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.K. Vijaya Ragavan, Adv. Mr. Y. Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B., Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sathiyaseelan, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR Ms. Harshika Verma, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh Fakhruddin Kalia, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. D. Venkata Krishna, Adv. Mr. Venkateshwaramoorthy, Adv. Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, AOR Sriram P., AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.K. Vijaya Ragavan, Adv. Mr. Y. Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B., Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sathiyaseelan, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR Ms. Harshika Verma, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh Fakhruddin Kalia, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. D. Venkata Krishna, Adv. Mr. Venkateshwaramoorthy, Adv. Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, AOR Sriram P., AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Direct recruits challenge the seniority of compassionate appointees in Class II posts as violating Articles 14 and 16 and judicial precedents restricting such appointments to lower classes. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. The State ignored binding precedent restricting compassionate appointments to Class III and IV, yet long-serving appointees should not be penalized for the State's administrative errors. (Para 10 , 23 , 28 , 31 , 35 , 38 , 42 , 43 , 45 )
4. Consequential seniority assigned per statutory rules based on the date of regular appointment is maintainable despite irregularities in appointment mode if the appointees are blameless. (Para 30 , 40 , 41 , 46 )
5. Appeals dismissed; the seniority list assigning priority to compassionate appointees based on their date of regular appointment is upheld. (Para 46 , 47 )
6. To which classes of public service should compassionate appointments be restricted?
Compassionate appointments should be restricted to Class III and Class IV (Group 'C' and Group 'D') posts. The objective is to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and help them overcome emergency, rather than providing a post for post replacement. (Para 10 , 28 )
7. How is seniority determined between compassionate appointees and direct recruits when statutory rules apply?
Seniority is assigned based on the date of regular appointment. If compassionate appointees are regularized or appointed as members of service before direct recruits enter service, they are entitled to consequential seniority under the applicable statutory rules. (Para 30 , 40 , 41 )
8. Can seniority be disturbed if appointments were made in violation of binding Supreme Court precedents?
While appointments made contrary to binding precedent are prima facie unsustainable, the court may refrain from disturbing seniority if the appointees have served for decades, were not at fault, and the error lay solely with the State authorities. (Para 35 , 38 , 46 )
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the officers who are direct recruits selected as Assistant Engineers after going through the process of selection held by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission(hereinafter being referred to as the “Commission”), claiming their seniority qua such of the candidates who were appointed as Assistant Engineers at different points of time as compassionate appointees and prayed that in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers which came to be published by the State authorities as on 1st January 2004, the present batch of appellants who are direct recruits appointed as Assistant Engineers be ranked senior to the candidates who were appointed as Assistant Engineers on compassionate ground.
3. Their grievance primarily is that after the process of selection was initiated by issuance of an advertisement by the Commission, such of the candidates who had either not participated in the process of open selection or had failed to qualify but because of losing their breadwinner, have been directly appointed as Assistant Engineers as compassionate appointees and are placed en bloc senior to the direct recruits Assistant Engineers and that is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and of Rule 35 of the TAMIL NADU STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICES RULES , 1955(hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules 1955”).
4. Seniority either inter se or between direct recruits and promotees or recruitment made by different sources is being governed by a statutory scheme of rules laying down the principles according to which the seniority list has to be determined but experience shows that it has never been finalized and always remain a subject matter of challenge and that challenge is not restricted upto the High Courts, but such challenges are always settled after the final judgment of this Court and this creates a lot of disharmony amongst the officers and since this Court is also not in a position to settle such matters at the earliest, delay remains inevitable and becomes fatal to the right of individual and indeed impairs the efficiency, commitment and devotion with which the employee is supposed to work and discharge his public duty to the satisfaction of the authority.
5. The case before us is also a live illustration of this kind. The service condition of the Assistant Engineers who became member of the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service are governed by the Special Rules to the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service and the post of Assistant Engineer with which we are presently concerned is indicated in the Schedule appended thereto in category (5) which provides the modes of recruitment to the service which reads as under:
TABLE
| 5. | Assistant Engineers | 1. Direct recruitment; or 2. Recruitment by transfer – (i) from the Junior Engineers who possess B.E., Degree or a pass in Sections A and B of the A.M.I.E. (India) Examination renamed as a pass in Sections – A and B of the Institution Examination or from Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service working in the Road Section; or from Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Engineering service working in the Highways and Rural Works Department or from Assistant Engineers who are probationers in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service; or |
| EXPLANATION : Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2( 15) in PartI of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the appointment of such Assistant Engineers from the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service shall be regarded as recruitment by transfer; | ||
| ii. from Assistant Engineers or overseers of the Tamil Nadu Minor Irrigation subordinate Service working on or before the 1st April 1961 or from panchayat Overseers; or | ||
| iii. from the Head Draughting Officer or Senior Draughting Officer of the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Subordinate Service who possess A.M.I.E. or B.E., | ||
