The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments made on compassionate basis and the seniority of the compassionate appointees cannot be challenged by subsequent appointees after a considerable period, and delay and laches can be grounds for dismissal of such challenges.

K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.

1. Introductory:

Whether it is open to the directly recruited Assistant Engineers, Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service to challenge the appointments of the dependants of the deceased Government servants on compassionate basis and the Government Order governing such appointments and to claim seniority over them after a period of nine years, is the core issue that arises for our consideration in these intra-court appeals.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of the respective writ petitions challenging the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.156, Labour and Employment Department dated 16 July 1993 and the seniority list of Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service dated 15 June 2004 placing the Assistant Engineers appointed earlier on compassionate basis above the regularly recruited Assistant Engineers.

The procedural History:

3. The appellant in Writ Appeal Nos.1826 and 1827 of 2011 filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6457 and 6458 of 2005. In W.P.No.6457 of 2005, the appellant challenged the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.156, Labour and Employment Department dated 16 July 1993 relaxing certain conditions with respect to the Assistant Engineers appointed on compassionate basis and with a prayer to remove respondents 5 to 37 from the post of Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service. In W.P.No.6458 of 2005, the appellant challenged the seniority list dated 15 June 2004 and a further prayer was made to place her above respondents 5 to 37, who were appointed directly to the post of Assistant Engineer on compassionate grounds.

4. The appellants in W.A.Nos.1906 to 1910 of 2010 filed three writ petitions. W.P.No.32062 of 2004 was primarily against the seniority list dated 15 June 2004 and the consequential prayer was to place respondents 5 to 33, who were appointed on compassionate grounds, below them. In W.P.No.32063 of 2004, the payer was to quash the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16 July 1993 insofar as the order excluding Provident Fund Accumulation, Family Benefit, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Encashment of leave at credit at the time of death, interest earnings which accrued on deposit of amounts, for the purpose of consideration of indigent circumstances for compassionate appointment and to declare G.O.Ms.No.156, Labour and Employment Department dated 16 July 1993 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Highways Service Rules. W.P.No.32064 of 2004 was filed to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring that the appointment of respondents 5 to 33 as Assistant Engineers in Highways Department was contrary to Highways Engineering Service Rules.

5. The appellants have projected a common case and taking into account the nature of reliefs claimed in the respective writ petitions, we consider it fit and proper to extract the background facts found in W.P.No.6457 of 2005.

W.P.No.6457 of 2005:

6. The appellant Ms. M.R. Kendra Devi obtained a degree in Engineering from Madurai Kamaraj University in the year 1988. While so, the Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu called for applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), Category V in Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Services. The notification indicated that the recruitment was for the purpose of filling up the vacancies for the year 1991-92. The appellant appeared for the written examination and on the basis of the results, she was called for an oral interview. The appellant was selected and appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular basis in the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service as per proceedings dated 23rd March 1995. The appellant joined the service immediately on 5 April 1995 and completed the probation on 4 April 1997. According to the appellant, as per Rule 35(a) of Tamil Nadu Sub-ordinate Service Rules, the list of seniority in the category of Assistant Engineers requires to be prepared o