Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
P.Stephen – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Department – Respondent
W.P.No.29452 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.MA.Gowthaman
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan, Mr.Sowmi Dattan, Mr.R.Bharanidharan, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, Ms.S.Suneetha, Mr.P.Chandrasekaran

Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of appointment, and retrospective seniority is not permissible unless explicitly provided by law.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 - Fixation of seniority - Writ petition challenging the seniority of certain respondents as Deputy Superintendents of Police - Court held that seniority must be determined based on the date of appointment - Respondents 4 and 5, appointed in 2017, cannot claim seniority over petitioners appointed in 2016 - Quashing of impugned government orders that improperly fixed the seniority of respondents - The respondents must be placed according to their actual appointment dates. (Paras 12.1, 12.2, 19(a), 19(b))

(B) Seniority - Right to seniority is a civil right - Must be determined by the date of appointment - No retrospective seniority can be conferred unless expressly provided by rules. (Paras 12.1, 12.3, 17)

(C) Locus Standi - Petitioners have the right to challenge the seniority as it affects their civil rights. (Paras 18)

Findings of Court:
The seniority of respondents 4 and 5 was improperly fixed, violating the provisions of the Act and constitutional principles.

Issues: Whether the fixation of seniority was lawful, and whether the petitioners had the standing to challenge it.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that seniority must be based on actual appointment dates, affirming that the interpretation of the relevant provisions was erroneous.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding appointments and promotions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

29. A.Kanakeswari [R6 to R29 impleaded vide order dated 04.06.2024 in W.M.P.No.15835 of 2024 in W.P.No.29452 of 2023] .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in connection with impugned G.O.Ms.No.301, Home (Pol.2) Department, dated 02.08.2021 issued by the 1st respondent fixing the seniority of the 4th and 5th respondent and the impugned G.O.(2D).No.325, Home (Police.1A) Department, dated 17.12.2021, including the names of the 4th and 5th respondents in the temporary panel of Deputy Superintendents of Police fit for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (Category – 1) for the year 2020-2021 and the impugned Police Note No.2, dated 24.03.2022, promoting and posting them as Additional Superintendents of Police (Category – 1) for the year 2020.2021 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, ultra vires and unconstitutional and consequently revise the seniority of the petitioners in accordance to the service laws and rules above the 4th and 5th respondents.

For Petitioners : Mr.MA.Gowthaman For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Sowmi Dattan for R1 and R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 Mr.R.Vijayakumar for R4 Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.S.Suneetha for R5 Mr.P.Chandrasekaran for R6 to R29 ORDER A. The Petitions:

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned G.O.Ms.No.301, Home (Police-1A) Department, dated 02.08.2021, in and by which, the seniority of the respondents 4 and 5 are fixed as 4 A1 and 4 A2 in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “DSP”] for the purpose of considering for promotion to the next higher post of Additional Superintendent of Police [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “Adl. SP”] (Category – 1) for the year 2020-2021 and the panel vide G.O.Ms.No.325, Home (Police-1A) Department, dated 17.12.2021 prepared for promotion to the post of Adl. SP (Category – 1) for the year 2020-2021 and the consequential Police Note No.2 dated 24.03.2022, promoting and posting them as Adl. SP (Category – 1) for the year 2020-2021.

B. The Case of the Petitioner:

2. The facts, that are relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition, are culled out hereunder:

(i) There were vacancies in the DSP post (Category – 1) in Class II of the Tamil Nadu Police Service. Recruitment to the said post is under the Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India , which read as follows:

Class (1)	Method of Appointment (2)
Class II Category (1) Deputy Superintendent of Police including those posted as Deputy Assistant Inspector General of Police in the Office of the Inspector General of Police, Tamil Nadu Deputy Supdt. Of Police poted to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and Assistant Comissioners of Police in the Madras City Police, but excluding those posted as (a) Assistant Commissioner	(a) Direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from Inspectors of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. (b) The proportion in which substantive vacancies shall be filled by Direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer shall be 1:2.

of Police, Armed Reserve, Madras City.

(b) Assistant Commissioner of Police, Transport, Madras City, (c) Principal, Police Recruits School, Coimbatore.

(d) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Care Camp and Care Home, Melpakkam (e) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Madurai, Ramanathapuram and Tiruchirappalli.

(ii) In 2011-2013, applications were called for among the eligible candidates for appointment to the said post through direct recruitment and according to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASD.Bharatha Chakravarthy, JP.Stephen – AppellantVersusGovernment of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Department – RespondentW.P.No.29452 of 2023

Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of appointment, and retrospective seniority is not permissible unless explicitly provided by law.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
P.Stephen – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Department – Respondent
W.P.No.29452 of 2023