Seniority must be determined by the date of appointment, not merely by merit ranking, especially for candidates appointed from reserve lists.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for an Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1^st respondent in Letter No.431/OTD-D/(Adv.No.211/(2009)/2022 dated 26.05.2023 to quash in sofar as the placement of the petitioner at 14-A1 is concerned and to consequently assign appropriate placement above Ganapathi Murugan and below T.Shankar at 7-A with all other service accruals arising thereto.

2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner, are as follows:

(i) The petitioner pursuant to the notification of the 3^rd respondent in Group- VII A services for the year 2008-2009 was appointed as Executive Officer Grade – I with effect from 09.11.2011. The initial notification was for about 14 vacancies and consequent upon 6 selected candidates, 5 simultaneously getting selected to the post of Assistant Commissioner and the other accepting the other services, the petitioner was included from the reserve list on the basis of roaster vacancy, which had been caused due to either non-joining of the selected candidate or in having left for joining the post of Assistant commissioner. Ever since the joining the post of Executive Officer, Grade-I, the petitioner has been discharging a clear and unblemished record of service for the past over a decade. Subsequently, he has been promoted on 01.12.2021 as Assistant Commissioner and continues as such as on date.

(ii) Further, the seniorty that was initially assigned to the petitioner and other similarly situated individuals on the basis of selection followed by a roster to be adopted by the respective departments was called in question and ultimately, the Hon'ble Apex Court by a detailed Judgment resulting in Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.6415/2021 in SLP (Civil) NO.2886 of 2016 wherein and whereby the State Government of all 54 departments was directed to recast the seniority in strict adherence to merit ranking by adjusting of all appointments followed by promotions already made by its order dated 18.04.2023 and has directed the same to be placed for reporting compliance on 18.07.2023.

(iii) Also the state of affairs as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court is liable to be re-done appropriately by the respondents, who have chosen to revise and recast the seniority more particularly on the basis of the directions therein, the 1^st respondent issued a proceedings addressed to the 3^rd respondent in letter no.431/OTD-D/(Adv.No.211/2009)/2022 dated 26.05.2023 had intimated the revised seniority list through the said proceedings and annexure thereto would state that it is pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above reference, but it has miserably failed to strictly adhere, adopt and assign appropriate placement in so far as the petitioner is concerned based on his marks obtained in the examination / selection to the post of Executive Officer, Grade -I. The said communication of the revised seniority list, which is not in conformity with the directions has been communicated by the 3^rd respondent through Additional Commissioner (Administration) in Me.Ku.Na.Ka.No.28759/2022-I/L1 dated 07.07.2023, wherein the petitioner's placement in the seniority has been improperly and wrongly assigned.

(iv) Further, insofar as the petitioner's merit marks are concerned, it is 517.50, as such the petitioner ought to have been placed above Ganapathi Murugan (517.50) and below T.Shankar (517.50) by considering the date of birth amongst them, as per the dictum of law holding the field towards its proper implementation of the directives of true