1. Inter se seniority dispute between direct recruits, special appointees, and compassionate appointees in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.V.N. Bhatti, Shree Chandrashekhar, JJ.
M. Prema – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Secretary To The Government And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8757 of 2013
With
H. Nagarajan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of T.N. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8755 of 2013
With
R. Kanthimathi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8756 of 2013
With
M. Prema – Applicant
Versus
The Secretary To Government, Home Department, Chennai And Ors. – Respondents
T.C.(C) No. 50 of 2013
With
R. Kanthimathi – Applicant
Versus
The Secretary To Government, Home Department, Chennai And Ors. – Respondents
T.C.(C) No. 51 of 2013
With
A. Govindarajan – Applicant
Versus
The Secretary To Government, Home Department, Chennai And Ors. – Respondents
T.C.(C) No. 52 of 2013
Decided On : 09-10-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Binu Tamta- 121, AOR Mr. V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv.* Mr. R. Subramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jyoti Parasher, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan- 1101, AOR Mr. P R Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan- 1944, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar- 890, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rupali Francesca Samuel- 4335, AOR Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv. Ms. Supriya, Adv. Ms. Rakshita Mamgain, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Binu Tamta- 121, AOR Mr. V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv.* Mr. R. Subramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jyoti Parasher, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan- 1101, AOR Mr. P R Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan- 1944, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar- 890, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rupali Francesca Samuel- 4335, AOR Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv. Ms. Supriya, Adv. Ms. Rakshita Mamgain, Adv.
Direct recruits through competitive selection prevail in seniority over temporary, ad hoc, or compassionate appointees. Temporary service prior to regularization cannot be counted for seniority against regular recruits, and executive orders cannot override the primacy of regular recruitment rules.
Headnote:(A) State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 - Rule 10(a)(i) and Rule 48 - Special Absorption Rules, 1987 - Clause 10 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 162 and 309 - Dispute regarding inter se seniority between direct recruits, special appointees (temporary staff later regularized), and compassionate appointees - Regular recruits appointed through competitive examination are entitled to rank above those who entered in service as temporary/stopgap measures or on compassionate grounds (Paras 14, 23)
(B) Executive Orders - An executive order issued under Article 162 can supplement rules but cannot operate against them - Appointments on compassionate grounds are exceptions to Articles 14 and 16 and cannot be placed at par with direct recruits (Para 14)
(C) Temporary Service - Employees appointed under rules for temporary appointments cannot claim seniority based on temporary service prior to regularization - Ad hoc employees cannot claim seniority above a junior person already in service (Paras 20, 21)
(D) Inter se Seniority - Seniority between two categories of non-regular recruits, such as temporary and compassionate appointees, should generally be determined by the date of regularization in the absence of clear recruitment rules (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose over the seniority list of ministerial staff involving three categories: those selected through a competitive examination (Direct recruits), those appointed to temporary vacancies and later regularized under special absorption rules (Special appointees), and those appointed on compassionate grounds. The High Court had held that Direct recruits should rank above Special appointees, but that the seniority of Compassionate appointees vis-à-vis Direct recruits should be determined by their initial date of appointment.
Findings of Court:
Direct recruits of the 1983 batch shall rank higher than both Special appointees and Compassionate appointees. The provision placing Special appointees below Direct recruits is valid as it follows the norm that regular mode appointees rank higher than those who entered through regularization. Compassionate appointees cannot claim seniority over Direct recruits as such appointments are exceptions to the regular recruitment process and not a regular mode of selection.
Issues: Whether Direct recruits should rank above Special and Compassionate appointees regardless of the date of appointment, and the basis for determining inter se seniority between Special and Compassionate appointees.
Ratio Decidendi: A government employee appointed through the due regular process must rank senior to those who entered service as a temporary measure or through compassion. Temporary or ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority against regular recruits. Executive orders cannot override the principles of regular recruitment. In the absence of specific rules, the date of regularization is the appropriate criterion for determining seniority between different classes of non-regular appointees.
Result: T.C.(C) Nos. 50, 51, and 52 of 2013 dismissed; Civil Appeal Nos. 8756 and 8757 of 2013 disposed of with directions; Civil Appeal No. 8755 of 2013 allowed to the extent that Compassionate appointees shall not rank above the Direct recruits of 1983 batch.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Direct recruits claim seniority over all; special appointees seek seniority from initial appointment; compassionate appointees rely on G.O. for date-based placement. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 )
3. Direct recruits form a separate class; compassionate appointments are exceptions to Articles 14 and 16; seniority cannot be based on temporary service. (Para 14 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Direct recruits selected through regular process rank above compassionate and special appointees; inter se seniority of non-direct recruits is from regularization date. (Para 14 , 23 , 24 )
5. Compassionate appointees not to rank above direct recruits of 1983 batch; special appointees rank below direct recruits; inter se seniority fixed by regularization date. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Can compassionate appointees claim seniority over direct recruits based on date of initial appointment?
No. Compassionate appointments are exceptions to Articles 14 and 16; direct recruits selected through regular process rank above such appointees regardless of initial appointment date. (Para 14 , 23 )
7. What is the rule for fixing inter se seniority between different classes of appointees in the same cadre?
Where recruitment rules provide a methodology, that governs. Otherwise, seniority is counted from the date of regularization for temporary, ad hoc, or compassionate appointees. (Para 14 , 24 )
8. Can special appointees under Rule 10(a)(i) claim seniority from the date of initial temporary appointment?
No. Temporary service prior to regularization cannot be counted for seniority over direct recruits. Clause 10 of Special Absorption Rules validly places direct recruits above them. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 )
9. Does an executive order under Article 162 override recruitment rules regarding seniority?
No. An executive order can supplement rules but cannot operate against them. Compassionate appointees cannot be placed above direct recruits based on such an order. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
These Civil Appeals and Transferred Cases involve inter se seniority dispute between different category of appointees. The Direct recruits and Special appointees are claiming seniority over each other and together both claim higher position in the seniority list above the Compassionate appointees. The Direct recruits and Special appointees have challenged the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras delivered in W.P. No. 21654 of 2004 with W.P. Nos. 3822 and 3823 of 2006.
2. By a common judgment dated 3rd April 2006, the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed W.P. No. 21654 of 2004 filed by the Direct recruits and held that the Direct recruits irrespective of their date of joining shall be placed above the Special appointees in the combined seniority list. However, W.P. Nos. 3822 and 3823 of 2006 filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against the decision of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 3317 of 1992 and 5691 of 1993 were dismissed. The decision of the Tribunal was to the effect that the seniority of the Compassionate appointees, namely, S. Prem Kumar and T.A. Kannappa shall be reckoned above the Direct recruits of 1983 batch who were appointed after them and the Special appointees who were regularised in service with effect from 25th June 1984.
3. The facts of this case are not complex and are briefly stated thus:
- 3.1 During 1981-83, the Government of Tamil Nadu imposed a ban on the appointment of Junior Assistants and other Ministerial staff. However, temporary appointments were made under Rule 10(a)(i) of the “General Rules” which fall under Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 (in short, TN Service Rules).
3.2 M. Prema and 13 other persons were appointed under Rule 10 (a)(i) during 1981-84. In the meantime, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short, Commission) issued an advertisement for appointment on Five thousand posts of Group IV employees through competitive examination which was conducted on 27th November 1983. The result of the said written examination was published on different dates and the appointments were made during 1985-87. The selected candidates of this recruitment exercise are commonly identified as Direct recruits of 1983 Batch.
3.3 Around the year 1984, the Government of Tamil Nadu took a decision to regularise the services of the Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-typists, who were appointed on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, G.O. dated 14th September 1984 was issued by the order of the Governor under which the Compassionate appointees were placed in the seniority list of Direct recruits as per their date of appointment.
3.4 The Special appointees like M. Prema, R. Kanthimathi etc. were regularised in service with effect from 26th June 1984 vide G.O. dated 22nd September 1984. However, their seniority etc. have been fixed under Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules, 1987 which were published through G.O. dated 19th June 1987.
3.5 M. Prema, who was appointed on 1st December 1983 as Junior Assistant / Typist, continuously worked as a Junior Assistant / Typist and absorbed in service with effect from 26th June 1984. She was aggrieved by the provisional seniority list of Assistants / Typists published under the authority of the Director General of Police wherein she was placed below the Direct recruits. She approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in O.A. No. 4656 of 2001 seeking quashing of Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules. While O.A. No. 4656 of 2001 filed by her was pending consideration before the Tribunal, a bunch of Direct recruits approached the High Court in W.P. No. 21654 of 2004 claiming seniority over the Compassionate appointees, Special appointees and other class of employees.
3.6 To complete the factual matrix of the case, we indicate that the validity of Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules was challenged by the Sp
