Transferees in mutual transfers cannot usurp TNPSC merit-based seniority under Rule 20(b)(i) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)

Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.5667 of 2024 dated 30.10.2024.

2.The writ petitioner/A.Aneez Fathima has filed the above said writ petition challenging the order passed by the third respondent / District Collector, Tirunelveli wherein a combined interse seniority among the assistants working in Tirunelveli District, which has been published on 21.11.2017. She has also challenged the order passed by the fourth respondent / District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, dated 09.10.2023 wherein a combined seniority list published by the third respondent on 21.11.2017 has been revised based on the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission merit ranking, pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to assign seniority and rank to the fifth respondent/Rahmath Begam therein in Tirunelveli District taking into consideration the date of joining of one Karpagam on 10.07.2013. Aggrieved over the same, the fifth respondent/Rahmath Begam has preferred the present writ appeal.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the order of the Writ Court is against the law and in violation of Rule 20(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, since the appellant is admittedly senior to the said Karpagm as per their respective dates of joining duty on 06.12.2012 and 10.11.2013. However, the said Karpagm had secured rank No.19 in the revised TNPSC merit list for the year 2011-2013, whereas, the 5^th respondent/writ petitioner had secured rank No.28 in the merit selection list of the year 2011-2013. If the 5^th respondent/writ petitioner claimed seniority on the basis of the date of joining of duty at the time of appointment, then she should have challenged the TNPSC seniority merit seniority list of the 2011-2013 immediately; if not she is not entitled to claim seniority based on her date of joining duty which is against the said Rules. The order of the Writ Court is based on the wrong application of the Rule 20(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and the same is liable to be set aside.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing 5^th respondent/ writ petitioner would submit that the appellant transferred from Virudhunagar District to Tirunelveli District she would lose her seniority and she should have been placed below the writ petitioner. Though the appellant would be entitled to take the place of Karpagam, the said place has to be decided only on the date of joining of Karpagam, ie., 10.07.2013 and not based upon the TNPSC rank obtained by the said Karpagam. Though the said Karpagam had joined seven months after her appointment in Tirunelveli District, she was placed ahead of the writ petitioner only on the basis of the her TNPSC rank. The rank obtained by the said Karpagam cannot be taken advantage by the appellant by relying upon Rule 20(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. The writ Court rightly allowed the writ petition by applying the Rule 20(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and there is no reason warrants to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent to strengthen his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC 386, K.P.Sudhakaran and another Vs. State of Kerala and others to show that if a Government servant is so transferred on his own request, the transferred employee will have to forego his seniority till the date of transfer and will be placed at the bottom below the junior most employee in the category in the new cadre or