A candidate moved from a reserve list to a main list cannot claim seniority over those initially selected based on examination marks, as per applicable rules.

ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed a serving Superintendent of Police challenging G.O.Ms.No.353 dated 11.07.2023 issued by the first respondent wherein a revision of seniority orders have been passed in which the petitioner has been placed under Serial No.14. According to the petitioner, he should have been placed in Serial No.9 on the basis of TNPSC marks obtained by him. Hence, the present writ petition.

(A)Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

2.The third respondent namely Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had issued a notification on 27.12.2000 calling for applications for Group-I services. The petitioner having cleared the screening test namely preliminary examination, had appeared for the main written examination. After written examination and the interview, the final selection list was published on 25.08.2004 in which the petitioner was selected in the main list for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. However, his name was also included in the reserved list for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Grade-I).

3.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had sent a list of 20 candidates who had been selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Home Department on 25.08.2004 wherein the name of the petitioner was not found in the main list.

4.The TNPSC had also selected 33 candidates for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and sent a communication to the Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department on 25.08.2004 in which the name of the petitioner as shown in the main list in Serial No.9. Pursuant to the said communication of TNPSC, the Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department had issued G.O.(Ms).No.83, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.05.2005 wherein appointment orders were issued to the writ petitioner and 32 others. However, the petitioner has not joined in the said post awaiting posting orders as Deputy Superintendent of Police ,

5.One of the candidates namely Mr.M.S.Manivannan who was selected in the main list for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-I, had expressed his unwillingness to join the said post. Therefore, on 31.01.2005, the petitioner's name who was ranked first in the reserved list was moved to the main list for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and allotment orders were issued by TNPSC on 31.01.2005. However, on 07.07.2005, when the appointment orders were issued under G.O.(Ms).No. 573, Home (Police.2) Department, dated 07.07.2005 to other selected Deputy Superintendent of Police ( whose name were found in the main list), the name of the petitioner was not included. The petitioner has sent a representation on 11.07.2005 requesting for inclusion of his name for training which commenced on 21 st July 2005.

6.On 24.08.2005 under G.O.(Ms).No.166, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the approved list for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies based upon the letter issued by TNPSC on 10.08.2005. Thereafter, G.O.(Ms).No.830 was issued by the Home Department on 19.09.2005 appointing the writ petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category -I. The petitioner has participated in the training programme and passed out along with his other batchmates who received appointment order on 07.07.2005 under G.O.Ms.No.573, Home (Police.2) Department.

7.Under impugned Government Order dated 11.07.2023, the first respondent herein has issued the seniority list of Deputy Superintendent of Police who was recruited for the year 2000-2001 in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition(Diary).No.6415 of 2021. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No. 14. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner having secured more marks than the private respondents 4 to 8 o