1. In view of the common issues raised in all the Writ Petitions challenging the same order impugned, they have been taken up together and a common order is passed. As no relief is claimed by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners against the Assistant Professor directly selected and shown as 1 to 14 in the impugned list, the word respondents mentioned in this order will not make any reference to them by only against other private respondents.

2. This is the second round of litigation pertaining to the Inter-Se-Seniority in the post of Assistant Professors between those who have been directly appointed initially under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules on the one hand, and Tutors / Demonstrates originally appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and thereafter upgraded/promoted as Assistant Professors after undergoing a special qualifying test and those Assistant Professors who have been absorbed in pursuant to the taking over of the erstwhile Alagappa University on the other hand.

3. The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.14485, 14580 and 15364 of 2011 have been filed by the petitioners who have been appointed as Assistant Professors under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.14580 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners who are also appointed as Assistant Professors under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules but they challenged the impugned Inter-Se-Seniority list on the ground that Rule of Reservation will have to be followed once again among the Assistant Professors who have been appointed earlier, while supporting the case of the respondents on the Inter-Se-Seniority. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.19800 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner being an appointee under the physically handicapped category and working as a Principal at present, challenging the impugned order on the ground that he cannot be placed like that of others as he has been regularised with retrospective effect which order has not been challenged. Even though the persons shown in the impugned seniority list from 1 to 14 have been added as parties in these proceedings all the learned counsels fairly submitted that they are not challenging the said fixation of the Inter-Se-Seniority list pertaining to them as they have been appointed, admittedly by following the due process of law in permanent vacancies through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

4. The earlier fixation of Inter-Se-Seniority list was challenged before this Court. This Court in W.P.No.8495 of 2010, etc. dated 28.03.2011 has passed the following order:

"i) The Government is directed to consider the issue raised in these Writ Petitions and prepare Inter-se-Seniority List of Lecturers / Selection Grade Lecturers / Readers on or before 31.05.2011 and only on the basis of the said seniority list, the Principal posts which are lying vacant have to be filled up.

ii) As the above direction will settle the controversy once and for all, a direction is issued in W.P.No.8495 of 2010 to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 31.03.2010.

iii) Insofar as the prayer sought for in W.P.No.11176 of 2010 is concerned, the status-quo as on date is directed to be maintained till re-opening of the colleges for the academic year 2011-2012.

iv) W.P.No.16272 of 2010 is disposed of with the above directions.

v) As the issue is now directed to be considered by the Government, it is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Senior Counsel and other learned Counsels appearing for the private respondents and it is for the Government to decide the issue and pass appropriate orders and finalise the seniority list within the time mentioned above."

In pursuant to the