SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SURESH KUMAR, N.SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
M.Mahendran - Appellant
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P.(MD).Nos.7350, 21789 & 25923 of 2022 & W.P.(MD)No.17294 of 2020 & W.A.(MD)Nos.1191, 1192 & 1159 to 1165 of 2020 & W.P.Nos.16349 of 2023 & W.P.Nos.14645 & 14646 of 2016 & W.P.No.20152 of 2020 & W.P.No.21013 of 2024 and W.A.Nos.457 & 459 of 2026
Decided On : 27-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.M.Muthu Yazhini for M/s.Lajapathy Roy & Associates
For the Respondent:Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, AGP, Mr.L.Chandrakumar

Promotion among employees recruited through a common selection process must be governed by state-wide seniority based on the date of enlistment. Region-based seniority lists that result in arbitrary promotional disparities for similarly situated personnel violate the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity and non-discrimination.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Service Law - Promotion in security forces - Region-wise seniority vs State-wide seniority - Whether recruitment through common selection mandates unitary seniority - Arbitrary regional allocation leading to discriminatory promotional opportunities - Unconstitutionality of regulation. (Paras 61, 62, 69)

(B) Seniority - Inter-se seniority - Determination based on initial enlistment - Prospective implementation of state-wide seniority where region-wise systems caused stagnation - Policy change by employer - Legal validity of dispensing with regional promotion boards. (Paras 45, 63, 65)

Facts of the case:
Personnel were recruited through a common entry-level selection process and posted to regional ranges. Promotions were subsequently governed by range-specific seniority lists. This system resulted in situations where juniors in one region received advancements while seniors in other regions remained stagnated due to lack of available vacancies, despite having an earlier date of enlistment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the adoption of region-wise seniority violates the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity, as there is no rational nexus between the regional allocation and the object of promoting service efficiency. The government accepted the need for a shift to state-wide seniority based on the initial date of enlistment, ensuring future promotions are equitable.

Issues: Whether the regulation prescribing region-wise promotion lists for force personnel is violative of the right to equality under the constitution, and whether the prolonged denial of promotional opportunities due to regional bifurcation is sustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Regional allocation of promotional stages for personnel recruited through a unified selection process creates artificial and discriminatory classifications. In conformity with established constitutional principles, seniority must be determined by the initial date of enlistment in the service cadre to avoid the devaluation of merit and provide equal promotional avenues.

Result: Petitions allowed; government directed to implement state-wide seniority based on enlistment dates prospectively.

Table of Content
1. challenge to range-wise seniority and establishment of state-wide seniority requirement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. evaluation of rule 3(b)(ii)(b) and arguments regarding discriminatory range-wise promotions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33)
3. court-facilitated resolution adopting prospective state-wide seniority system and supernumerary posts. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
4. rule 3(b)(ii)(b) held as redundant and violate of art 14 due to arbitrary zonal distribution. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
5. final direction to implement state-wide seniority from constabulary enlistment date prospectively. (Para 71 , 72)

ORDER :

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

The issue raised in this batch of cases since is one and the same, all these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The prayer sought for in these cases are two fold. In one set of cases, the prayer sought for is a writ of declaration declaring that the Rule 3(b)(ii)(b) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, as illegal and unconstitutional and for consequential relief and another set of cases were filed seeking a relief of quashment of C-list or promotion list issued by the employers / state police authorities in respect of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police or the Inspectors of Police as the case maybe and for consequential relief.

3. In both the set of prayers, the consequential relief was to seek a direction to the employer / respondents State to draw a list of seniority on the basis of State wide seniority based on the date of enlistment, i.e., from the Constabulary stage of police constables and accordingly give the promotion as per the seniority for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police or the Inspector of Police as the case may be.

4. Since the issue is common and facts are also similar, for the sake of brevity and for better understanding of the cases the facts projected in W.P.(MD).No.7350 of 2022 are traversed herein.

5. That the petitioners in this writ petition were selected and recruited as Grade II Police Constable and in respect of the first petitioner, he joined on 09.06.1993 as Grade II Police Constable and in respect of the second writ petitioner, he joined as Grade II Police Constable on 31.10.1997.

6. As per the procedure in vogue, the selection and recruitment was made by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board through a common recruitment for the cadre of Grade II Police Constable along with the post of Fireman and Jail Warden.

7. After having been selected, the selectees were posted as Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police and after working for some years, they would be transferred to Armed Reserve in various Districts or Range. Insofar as these petitioners are concerned, they were allotted to Nilgris Range and Tuticorin Range or Nilgris District or Tuticorin District respectively.

8. As per the procedure which is in vogue, a police constable who has been recruited and enlisted as Grade II Police Constable would be given promotion as Grade I Police Constable on completion of 10 years successful completion as Grade II Police Constable. Thereafter on completion of five years service as Grade II Police Constable, he would be further promoted as Head Constable and after total service of 25 years, i.e., 10+5+10, the Head Constable would be further promoted as Special Sub-Inspector. Then the next promotional avenue would be Sub-Inspector of Police which would always be made subject to availability of vacancies in the Armed Reserve and the next hierarchy of post for promotion is Inspector of Police.

9. It is the further case projected by the petitioners that originally the post of Sub-Inspector of Police would be filled up under two method, one is Direct Recruitment, another

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top