Seniority must be based on appointment dates, and retrospective seniority restorations are not permitted without clear statutory backing.

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The writ petition has been instituted challenging the Office Memorandum issued by the respondent in proceeding dated 12.12.2023.

2. The petitioner joined as Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 11.03.2009.

Challenging the fixation of seniority in terms of merit ranking, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20449 of 2015 and the High Court along with the other writ petition passed final orders allowing the writ petition as follows:

“41. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.20449, 20451 and 20452 of 2015 are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The revised seniority lists as prepared in accordance with the marks obtained by the candidates recruited to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) would prevail irrespective of the order in which they may have been shown by the Public Service Commission or their roster positions. If two or more appointees obtain identical marks, the older or oldest in age, as the case may be, will occupy the higher or highest position between such candidates in the seniority list.

(ii) The above direction will apply only to appointees recruited to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2009 onwards.

(iii) It is needless to say that the dates of appointment are of crucial importance when preparing the seniority list, but when a common recruitment process is undertaken, all new recruits must be deemed to have been appointed on the same date and their order of seniority will be in accordance with the marks obtained in the recruitment examination, irrespective of the date of joining and regardless of the positions they occupied as per the roster.

(iv) The promotions obtained till today by candidates who have been recruited as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in or after the year 2009 will remain unaffected by this order, in the sense that no one already promoted should be demoted to a lower post.

(v) Even if the revision results in a higher ranked officer remaining in a lower post than a lower ranked https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ hcservices/ officer, promotion will be on the basis of the prospective vacancy in the promotional post.

(vi) For Civil Judges (Senior Division) who may be eligible to take the limited competitive examination in future, all judges ranked higher than the last placed Civil Judge (Senior Division) who is entitled to take the examination on the basis of the time spent in the post, will be eligible irrespective of not having spent the requisite time in the post.

(vii) As far as the 2020 recruitment process is concerned, since the appointments have not yet been made, the seniority list must be prepared in terms of this order and on the basis of the descending order of marks obtained by the appointees at the recruitment examination. To clarify for all purposes, the person with the highest marks must be placed first in the seniority list and so on till the person with the lowest marks in the last position, irrespective of what slots they may have occupied as per the roster. (viii) Any fixation or re-fixation of seniority made in accordance with law for judges recruited prior to

2009 will remain unaffected by this order.

Consequently, W.M.P.No.15866 of 2021 is closed. There will be no order as to costs.”

3. The Special Leave Petition filed by the private-respondent was dismissed by the Apex Court. Consequently, the seniority was re-fixed and revised seniority list was published in G.O.(D).No.1063, dated 08.09.2023. The seniority of the petitioner was fixed at 16th place instead of his original place in S.No.29.

4. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2016. A charge memo was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Writ Petition in W.P.No.17326 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner, challenging the disciplinary proceedings was dismissed by an order dated 10.07.2017. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of withholding of incr