The main legal point established is that the seniority list drawn based on merit cannot be questioned, and the date of regularisation does not affect inter se seniority.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Letter No.Ka.Ba.Ni2/19797/2017, dated 13.03.2017 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondents to re-fix the seniority in the cadre of Assistant Agriculture Officer, recruited through employment exchange in the year 2009, by adhering to the date of joining in service.)

1. This writ petition has been been in the nature of Certiorari Mandamus seeking records of the 2nd Respondent dated 13.03.2017 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to refix the seniority in the cadre of Assistant Agriculture Officer recruited through employment exchange in the year 2009 by adhering to the date of joining in service.

2. The petitioners had been appointed as Assistant Agriculture Officer in the year 2009 after the names were sponsored by the respective Employment Exchanges. They have also passed their Diploma in Agriculture. They were working at various places across the State of Tamil Nadu. The said recruitment had not been done by any approved agency like Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. They had also not written any examination to be so appointed as Assistant Agriculture Officer. They now dispute the seniority in which they have been placed.

3. Earlier, questioning the seniority, W.P.(M.D.)No.19041 of 2016 had been filed, seeking the very same relief. A learned Single Judge had passed an order in the said writ petition granting the relief sought by the writ petitioners therein. Thereafter, a batch of writ appeals were filed and they had come up for consideration before the Division Bench in W.A.(MD)Nos.221 to 225 of 2018 batch, M.Rajinikanth vs. S.Jegadeesan and others. The Division Bench by an order dated 04.09.2018 after examining the entire issues relating to seniority and also the mode of selection of Assistant Agriculture Officer like the petitioners herein through Employment Exchange, had finally held as follows, after taking into consideration the applicability or otherwise of Rule 35(a) and Rule 33(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Sub-Ordinate Service Rules. The Division Bench had held as follows:

''9. Admittedly, selection has been made based upon the marks obtained. That is the reason why, of the 3506 candidates, only 1707 were selected. This selection process has been approved by this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court. The issue of nonappointing some of the candidates those who got higher marks, was raised on the earlier occasion. It was rightly pleaded by the Government that such candidates, who secured higher marks, could not be given appointment though selected, because of the interim order. These persons joined later. Therefore, the question of awarding higher marks in the interview cannot be a ground to be raised in these proceedings, for the reason, this has already been dealt with and concluded in the earlier proceedings. Even otherwise, the same cannot be permitted to raise at this stage. Suffice it to say that all the selected candidates have undergone the very same process. Law is well settled that a candidate cannot be permitted to challenge a process after accepting it and undergone. Therefore, the common law principles of estoppel and acquiescence would certainly apply. Suffice it to note that even the writ petitioners/private respondents were appointed by same mode and those have accepted the rank list.

10. Rule 35(a) is very specific. It clearly mandates that seniority will have to be reckoned between the selected candidates based upon their merit. When once there is no doubt about the list having been drawn based upon the merit, the seniority list drawn based upon it cannot be questioned. After all, it is for the writ petitioners to substantiate it otherwise. In the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondents, the afor