Ratios
a. A person should come to the Court challenging the correctness of seniority list without unnecessary delay.
b. Settled seniority list should not be allowed to be disturbed at a later stage.

W.P.No.34957 of 2006 was initially filed by five petitioners, seeking to challenge G.O.Ms.No.104 Highways Department dated 19.06.2000 in so far as assigning higher ranks to candidates belonging to a particular class of Backward class who scored lesser marks than the candidates of same group and same class of Backward class who secured higher marks and after setting aside the same seeks for a consequential direction to TNPSC to prepare the revised list of candidates to be appointed as Assistant Engineers in Highways Department for the year 1997-99 and communicate the revised list to all the selected candidates with marks of all candidates and also to direct respondents 2 and 3 to pass consequential orders including revision of seniority list of Assistant Engineers as on 01.01.2004 published by the third respondent Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department dated 29.04.2004.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 10.01.2007. Subsequently, the original prayer was amended to the effect that the D.O. Letter dated 20.08.1998 sent by the second respondent to the first respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission also to be set aside. Subsequently, an application under Rule 2(b) was filed to defend the respondents in a representative capacity and that application was ordered and petitioners 6 to 21 were impleaded as parties.

3. With an identical prayer, W.P.No.50067 of 2006 was filed by one petitioner and similarly another petitioner has filed W.P.No.29356 of 2007. Even in that writ petition, respondents were directed to be sued in a representative capacity by filing an application under Rule 2(b).

4. In W.P.No.46868 of 2006, similar challenge is to the list of selected candidates published for the post of Assistant Engineers, Public Works Department for the year 1997-98 dated 16.11.1999 and after setting aside the same to revise the seniority list of the selectees. Counter affidavit was also filed. The petitioners have taken out an application under Rule 2(b) to sue the respondents in a representative capacity.

5. W.P.No.1447 of 2005 was filed by one petitioner seeking to challenge a rejection letter given by the TNPSC dated 24.12.2004 refusing to revise the seniority list in respect of the post of Assistant Engineer, Rural Development in Panchayat Union for which selections were made during the year 1997. Pending the writ petition, it was stated that any promotion made on the basis of the existing seniority will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Counter affidavit has also been filed.

6. Since in all the five writ petitions, the contentions raised are identical, they were grouped together and directed to be posted before this Court by orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 07.06.2012.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The case of the petitioners was that on 31.12.1997, a notification was issued for selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers in Pubic Works Department. Before the year 1998, selection list of candidates was prepared by TNPSC from the list of candidates who have undergone oral test arranged in the descending order of merit on one side and the reservation roster on the other side (without carving out the number of candidates as 31% for GT; 30% for BC; 20% for MBC; 19% for SC/ST). Thereafter candidates were fitted in the reservation roster as per Rule 22(c) of the General Rules. General Turn was filled from all candidates irrespective of caste purely based on merit. A reserved category turn either BC or MBC filled with the top ranker of the respective community. In this process, the reserved category is selected either as GT or Reserved Category turn whichever comes first, so that he gets filled in a more advantageous position. By the said old practice, the reservation policy of 35% for GT; 30% for BC; 20% for MBC and 19% for SC/ST were satisfied fully and there is no discrimination either among General Turn or other reserved categories. This procedure was follo