The court emphasized the validity of compassionate appointments and the professional qualifications of the appointees, dismissing the petitions challenging the appointments and seeking preference in seniority for direct recruits.

The present petitioners/Degree Holders in Civil Engineering, who came to be appointed as Assistant Engineers in the Highways Department in different spells during 1991-92, 1993-95 and 1995-96 through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (referred hereinafter as the 'Commission/TNPSC') after emerging successful in various Tests and Exams conducted by the Commission, have approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through the above writ petitions which, in all, contain prayers in three dimensions:

(a) challenging the Government Orders in G.O. Ms. Nos.155 and 156 dated 16.07.1993 whereby compassionate appointments and regularisation of such appointments in respect of respondents/compassionate appointees were allowed for Class-II Services in the Highways Department (vide prayer in WP Nos.32063/04 and 6457/06);

(b) questioning the Seniority List published on 15.06.2004 and seeking a consequential direction to the official respondents-1 to 4 to place the petitioners above the respondents-compassionate appointees (vide prayer in WP Nos.32062 of 2004 and 6458 of 2006); and

(c) to declare the appointments of the respondents/compassionate appointees as AEs in the Highways Department as illegal by holding that such appointments are contrary to the Highways Engineering Service Rules (as per the prayer in WP No.32064 of 2004).

Inasmuch as all the three inter-connected writ petitions require a joint disposal on common issues, they are dealt with and decided so.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petitions are mentioned below for better appreciation of the case and cause:-

The petitioners herein, in pursuant to the advertisements issued by the TNPSC in different spells during 1991-1995 for Direct Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers for Tamil Nadu Highway Engineering Service governed by the Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, applied for the same and, after successfully passing through various levels of the Tests including preliminary examination, main examination and viva-voce, they came to be appointed as Assistant Engineers. The post in question being a 'Technical Post' under class-II services, the entire process of selection was commenced and concluded by the Commission. While so, the Chief Engineer, High Ways Department, issued a 'Seniority List' in Memo No.22369/Nirvagam 3 (4) 2004, dated 15.06.2004, where-from, for the first time, the petitioners came to know that a handful of persons were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer by way of compassionate appointment even though there was no scheme for appointment by such course as the only mode for appointment for Class-II service is selection through the competitive exams conducted by the Commission, and that, deviating from the Rules and Procedure relating to selection, those compassionate appointees, whose appointment itself is illegal as it is contrary to the 'entry scheme' specified and provided in the Rules, were accommodated in the Seniority List to compete with the petitioners, who joined the services after undergoing due process of selection as set by the Commission.

Inasmuch as the governing rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and it has been clearly stipulated that the appointment to the post of AEs under Class-II shall only be by two modes i.e., either by direct recruitment or by transfer, the petitioners made representations seeking clarification as to the status of the compassionate appointees and their legitimacy in competing with the petitioners in the Seniority List, but, there was no response. The enquiries revealed that those respondents were appointed on compassionate grounds on the demise of the Government Servant in harness and further, in some of the cases, at the time of appointment, the appointee did not even possess the requisite qualification/BE. The framework of G.O. Ms. Nos.155 and 156, (L&E), dated 16.07.1993 in