Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
K Palani - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Labour & Employment Department – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 29670 of 2015, 15623 of 2019, 15973 of 2018, 16924 of 2019,14887 of 2019 and 1857 of 2020, 22881 of 2023, 26309 of 2018 and 26316 of 2018, WMP.Nos.28559 of 2025, 22357 of 2023, 22358 of 2023, 22359 of 2023, 19210 of 2016, 31293 of 2016, 37948 of 2016, 2166 of 2020, 2168 of 2020, 17597 of 2021, 14872 of 2019, 18240 of 2019, 28244 of 2019, 1667 of 2020, 17598 of 2021, 8253 of 2020, 15516 of 2019, 18243 of 2019, 18400 of 2019, 18999 of 2018, 19000 of 2018, 6895 of 2020, 16502 of 2019, 16506 of 2019, 25988 of 2019, 14062 of 2019, 1215 of 2019, 13751 of 2019 and 1218 of 2019
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Seniority and Promotion
Act Referred
TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CONDITIONS OF SERVICE ACT : S.40(2)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.16, Art.16(1)
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES : R.8
Headnote
(B) Service law - Quota-rota principle - Mandatory compliance where special rules prescribe vacancy sequence - Excess appointments by one source encroaching other source's quota invalid for seniority - Cannot claim benefit of earlier appointment date under general seniority rules where initial appointment violates special rules. (Paras 12, 16, 44)
Facts of the case:
Batch of writ petitions by transferees challenging rejection of seniority claims and by direct recruits challenging seniority lists placing transferees (appointed 02.04.2012 against 2011-12 vacancies) above direct recruits (appointed Dec 2012 against 2010-11 vacancies) - Between 1998-2012, 203 appointments made: 163 by transfer (excess 44), 40 by direct recruitment (shortfall 44) - Violation of 1:2 ratio on vacancy-wise basis admitted.
Findings of Court:
Impugned seniority lists quashed - Official respondents directed to rework inter se seniority applying vacancy-wise quota-rota per Special Rules within 3 months.
Issues: Whether quota 1:2 direct recruits:transferees to be applied vacancy-wise or cadre-wise - Whether transferees appointed in excess entitled to seniority over direct recruits.
Ratio Decidendi: Explanation to Rule 2 mandates vacancy-based sequence (first vacancy direct, next two transfer) - Deviation filling direct vacancies by transfer without backlog carry-forward illegal - Section 40(2) yields to special rules' mandatory quota-rota - Excess transferees' seniority adjusted per quota, not earlier date.
Result: Writ petitions by transferees dismissed; by direct recruits allowed.
For the Petitioner: Mr.Karthik Rajan For Mr. K.J. Parthasarathay
For the Respondent:Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG Asst. by Mrs. S. Anitha, Spl.GP, Mr.N.Subramaniayn For Mr. G. Mutharasu, Mr. V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate For Mr. N. Ramakrishnan M/s. ARK Law Associates, Mr. V.Sundar Raman
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interconnected writ petitions on labour officer seniority. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of transferees' challenge to 2015 memorandum. (Para 4) |
| 3. direct recruits argue vacancy-wise 1:2 quota violation. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
1.Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are interconnected and arise out of the same subject matter, they are taken up together and disposed of by way of this common order.
W.P. No. 29670 of 2015
2. This writ petition has been filed by the transferees challenging the memorandum dated 19.11.2015 issued by the Commissioner of Labour, whereby the representations submitted by the transferees seeking determination, fixation, and communication of their inter se seniority in the cadre of Labour Officers were rejected. The petitioners contend that such fixation of seniority ought to have been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.
W.P. Nos. 15623 of 2019, 15973 of 2018, 16929 of 2019, 14887 of 2019 and 1857 of 2020, 22881/2023, 26309/2018 and 26316 /2018
3. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are direct recruits appointed to the post of Labour Officer. They challenge the validity and correctness of G.O. (Ms) No. 38 dated 09.11.2019, whereby the transferees involved in these proceedings were placed above the direct recruits in the seniority list pertaining to the cadre of Labour Officers. The direct recruits were appointed in December 2012 against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2010–2011, whereas the transferees were appointed in April 2012 against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2011–2012.
4. Background of W.P. No. 29670 of 2015
4.1. W.P. No. 29670 of 2015 was originally filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to determine and fix the inter se seniority and to draw up a seniority list for the cadre of Labour Officers in accordance with Rule 35(a)(i) read with Rule 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. This court vide interim order dated 04.07.2018 directed the official respondents to prepare a seniority list for the post of Labour Officers (now redesignated as Assistant Commissioners of Labour) from the year 1997–1998, after inviting objections and suggestions from the concerned individuals through the Commissioner of Labour,.
4.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners in W.P. No. 29670 of 2015 preferred W.A. No. 1715 of 2018 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench disposed of the said writ appeal with a direction to the learned Single Judge to work out the inter se seniority between the parties after hearing all the affected parties and considering the various grievances raised, including those of the direct recruits.
4.3. Pursuant to the above directions, the first respondent examined the matter in detail after considering the objections and suggestions submitted by the concerned parties. Consequently, the earlier guidelines issued in G.O. 4(D) No. 30 dated 23.08.1996 were set aside. Thereafter, a final inter se seniority list for the cadre of Assistant Commissioners of Labour (formerly Labour Officers) was prepared between the direct recruits and the transferees from the year 1998 onwards, in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conditions of Service Act, 2016 (corresponding to the erstwhile Rule 35(aa ) of the General Rules). In the said seniority list, the transferees were placed above the direct recruits. Aggrieved , the direct recruits are before this court.
5. Learned counsels appearing for the direct recruits, submitted that the Explanation to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service, which governs appointments to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, specifically provides that the first vacancy shall be filled by direct recruitment and the next two vacancies shall be filled by recruitmen
