1. Dispute concerning inter-se seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police recruited through open market versus in-service candidates under a reserved quota in direct recruitment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 758
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021] With Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20061 of 2022]
Decided On : 01-05-2025
Important Points
Amendments favoring in-service candidates in seniority over direct recruits violated constitutional equality, necessitating merit-based revisions.
Subject
Service Law - Senior Recruitment and Seniority
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21, Art.309
MADRAS CITY POLICE ACT: S.11, S.9
Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police: R.25(e)
TAMIL NADU DISTRICT POLICE ACT: S.10, S.8
TAMIL NADU SERVICE MANUAL: S.34
MADRAS CITY POLICE ACT: S.11, S.9
Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police: R.25(e)
TAMIL NADU DISTRICT POLICE ACT: S.10, S.8
TAMIL NADU SERVICE MANUAL: S.34
Headnote
(A) Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 - Article 309 of the Constitution of India - Seniority concern in police sub-inspector recruitment - State Government granted 20% reservation under direct recruitment for in-service candidates with retrospective effect, leading to disputes concerning inter-se seniority between departmental candidates and open market recruits - Court found such amendments violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21, as they favored less meritorious candidates over those with higher scores. (Paras 22, 24, 28)
Facts of the case:
The core issue involved the fixation of seniority between directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of Police from an open market (80%) and from in-service candidates under a 20% quota established by government orders, with many in-service candidates scoring lower marks yet gaining preferred seniority. (Paras 7-19)
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled the amendments aiding in-service candidates unwanted executive directions conflicting with statutory rules, warranting a recasting of seniority based solely on merit. (Paras 22, 29)
Issues: The key issues encompassed whether retrospective seniority for in-service candidates undermines meritocratic principles and violates constitutional guarantees. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that amendatory power cannot grant preferential treatment contrary to established merit; prior recruitments under 80% direct recruitment entailing clear merit measures must direct seniority. (Para 29)
Result: The GO dated 21.11.2017 was quashed; necessary amendments to be made for revising seniority lists, reinforcing the merit-based selection process. Appeals disposed of without costs.
Facts of the case:
The core issue involved the fixation of seniority between directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of Police from an open market (80%) and from in-service candidates under a 20% quota established by government orders, with many in-service candidates scoring lower marks yet gaining preferred seniority. (Paras 7-19)
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled the amendments aiding in-service candidates unwanted executive directions conflicting with statutory rules, warranting a recasting of seniority based solely on merit. (Paras 22, 29)
Issues: The key issues encompassed whether retrospective seniority for in-service candidates undermines meritocratic principles and violates constitutional guarantees. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that amendatory power cannot grant preferential treatment contrary to established merit; prior recruitments under 80% direct recruitment entailing clear merit measures must direct seniority. (Para 29)
Result: The GO dated 21.11.2017 was quashed; necessary amendments to be made for revising seniority lists, reinforcing the merit-based selection process. Appeals disposed of without costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.p. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv. Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sreegesh M.k, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mrs. V.santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mrs. Meera Karta, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Pal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yashodeep P Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sreegesh M.k, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mrs. V.santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mrs. Meera Karta, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Pal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yashodeep P Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sameeksha Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Sahil Goyal, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR Mr. Musthafa Atheeq .a, Adv. Mr. Ashokkumar .k, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.p. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv. Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sreegesh M.k, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mrs. V.santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mrs. Meera Karta, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Pal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yashodeep P Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sreegesh M.k, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mrs. V.santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mrs. Meera Karta, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Pal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yashodeep P Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sameeksha Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Sahil Goyal, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR Mr. Musthafa Atheeq .a, Adv. Mr. Ashokkumar .k, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether seniority in direct recruitment must be based on merit or if in-service candidates can be granted preferential seniority via executive instructions and retrospective amendments. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Executive instructions cannot supplant statutory rules; seniority in competitive direct recruitment must be based on merit and rank rather than past service or age. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 )
4. Seniority for candidates selected through competitive examination must be determined by merit, and statutory rules cannot be superseded by executive instructions or retrospective amendments. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
5. Retrospective amendment granting preferential seniority to in-service candidates quashed; seniority lists to be recast based on marks obtained in the selection process. (Para 27 , 28 )
6. Can executive instructions override or supersede statutory recruitment rules?
No. Executive instructions can supplement or clarify statutory rules or fill gaps where rules are silent, but they cannot run contrary to, supplant, or whittle down the effect of statutory provisions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
7. How should seniority be determined for candidates selected through a competitive direct recruitment process?
Seniority must be fixed based on the merit list and ranks assigned by the appointing authority based on marks obtained in the qualifying examination, regardless of prior service in a feeder cadre. (Para 19 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
8. Is a retrospective amendment that grants seniority to less meritorious candidates constitutional?
No. An amendment that takes away the rights of an individual with retrospective effect by placing less meritorious candidates above more meritorious ones is violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. (Para 22 , 23 )
JUDGMENT :
(Satish Chandra Sharma, J.)
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeals are arising out of common judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 25263/2009 and Writ Petition No. 33544/2018 by High Court of Judicature at Madras, which relates to disputes concerning seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu.
3. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellants before this Court were appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police through a process of selection, keeping in view Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “1955 Rules”). The 1955 Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment rules provide for various modes of recruitment which includes; (a) recruitment by transfer; (b) direct recruitment; and (c) recruitment by promotion. In the present case, the statutory provisions necessary to decide the controversy involved (relating to direct recruitment and promotion) are reproduced hereunder:
“Rule 3 – Method of Appointment and promotion
(a) (i) Appointment to the several classes and categories shall be made as indicated in Annexure – I.
(ii) Persons who were already included in the ‘C’ list for a particular year but not promoted before the expiry of the validity of the said list be considered for higher place in the list drawn in the subsequent year on merits of each case in preference to other persons included in the ‘C’ list.
(b) (i) Promotion to the under mentioned posts shall be made on grounds of merit and ability seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal.
Inspectors – Inspector of Police (Fingerprint)
Senior Reporter, Shorthand Bureau, Vellore Sub-Inspectors-Sub Inspector of Police (Fingerprint)
Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Omitted as per G.O. No. 721 (Home dated 26-4-1 w.ef. 3-5-1990)
Reserve Inspectors
Reserve Sub-Inspectors
Reserve Assistant Sub-Inspector (Deleted in G.O.Ms. No. 1827)
Head-Constables including Band Head Constables, Office of the Director General of Police, Madras.
Reserve Head Constables including Armourers, Signallers and Motor Transport Drivers.
(ii) Such promotion shall be made from a list of qualified candidates suitable for promotion prepared and finalised by
(a) The State Promotion Board constituted by the Director General of Police, subject to the appointment of the Government from time to time in the case of promotion to the post of inspectors, reserve Inspectors and Senior Reporters, Shorthand Bureau, Madras from the ranks of Sub-Inspectors, Reserve Sub-Inspectors and Junior Reporters, respectively.
(b) The Range Promotion Board in respect of various units as detailed below, subject to the approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Police or Commissioner of Police, Madras, as the case may be in respect of promotion from the posts of Head constables to Reserve Sub-Inspectors and from the post of Had Constables to Sub-Inspectors (There shall be only one combined list for promotion from the rank of Head Constables to Sub- Inspectors.
The Range Promotion Board of the Range specified in Column (1) of the Table below shall consist of the District and Unit specified in the corresponding entries in Column (2) therefor.
xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx
| Annexure – 1 [Referred to in rule 3(a)] | |||
| Class and Category | Method of Appointment | Limitation | Appointing Authority |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| Class I - Category 1 Inspector of Police Category 1A Inspector of Police (Finger Print ) G.O. Ms. No. 395 Home Police (VI) dated 20.04.2000 Category 2 -Sub Inspectors of Police Substituted in G.O. Ms. No. 1254 Home, dated 16.7.92 Added in G.O. Ms. No. 559, Home Dated 29.3.96 Category 2A – Sub Inspector of Police (Finger Print) G.O.Ms. No. 395 Home Police VI dated 20.4.2000 | Promotion from Sub-Inspectors of P | ||
