The Supreme Court on October 9, 2026, delivered a significant ruling on inter-se seniority in public employment, holding that direct recruits appointed through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) competitive exam of 1983 are senior to both "special appointees," who were appointed temporarily under Rule 10 a(i) and later regularised, and to "compassionate appointees" who were appointed as an exception on compassionate grounds. The judgment, authored by Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and comprising a bench with Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, modified a April 2006 decision of the Madras High Court that had allowed compassionate appointees to be placed above direct recruits based on earlier appointment dates.

The dispute originated from a ban on recruitment to ministerial posts in Tamil Nadu during 1981-83. During this period, M. Prema and 13 others were temporarily appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955, drawn from Employment Exchange lists. Meanwhile, TNPSC conducted a competitive examination in November 1983 for over 5,000 Group IV positions. Successful candidates were appointed between 1985 and 1987. In 1984, the government decided to regularise the temporary "special appointees" with effect from 26 June 1984, and later framed the Special Absorption Rules, 1987, Clause 10 of which provided that these appointees would rank below the direct recruits of the 1983 batch, regardless of their date of appointment. Separately, compassionate appointees S. Prem Kumar and T.A. Kannappa, appointed in August and November 1985 respectively, were regularised from the date of initial appointment and claimed seniority among direct recruits.

The High Court's Division Bench had partly allowed the writ petition of the direct recruits, holding that they rank above special appointees. However, it ruled that seniority between direct recruits and compassionate appointees would depend on the date of initial appointment—a direction that allowed compassionate appointees with earlier appointment dates to be placed senior. Both special appointees led by M. Prema and direct recruits led by H. Nagarajan challenged the judgment. The state government also appealed on the question of seniority of compassionate appointees.

The Core Ruling: Regular Recruits Cannot Be Made Junior by Temporary or Compassionate Appointments

The Supreme Court observed that a fundamental principle in service jurisprudence dictates that an employee appointed following due procedure and in accordance with the rules must rank senior to those who entered service as a temporary, stopgap measure or owing to an emergency. The court emphasised that direct recruits are entitled to claim seniority from the date of their appointment, and their seniority cannot be fixed based on confirmation or deferred until regularisation of others.

"This is a basic rule of seniority that a Government employee appointed to a post following the due procedure and in accordance with the rules must rank senior to the appointees who entered in service as a temporary or stopgap measure or were appointed owing to some emergency," the court observed.

The judgment relied on the Constitutional Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990), which distinguished regular appointments from temporary or ad hoc arrangements. The court noted that while past services of temporary or ad hoc employees may be counted for pension purposes, they cannot be used to claim seniority over regular recruits.

Compassionate Appointees Cannot be Placed Above Direct Recruits

The court disagreed with the High Court's conclusion that compassionate appointees could be placed above direct recruits based on their date of appointment. It held that compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that such appointees form a separate class. It ruled that regular recruits cannot be rendered junior through subsequent regularisation of temporary appointees.

"By virtue of the impugned judgment, the Compassionate appointees shall be placed above the Direct recruits and the Special appointees in the seniority list. While holding so, the High Court overlooked a fundamental rule in service jurisprudence that the Direct recruits are entitled to claim seniority over other appointees who came in the cadre through other sources," the court said.

The court thus allowed the civil appeal of the direct recruits (Civil Appeal No. 8755 of 2013) and held that the two compassionate appointees—S. Prem Kumar and T.A. Kannappa—shall rank below the 1983 batch of direct recruits.

Inter Se Seniority Between Special and Compassionate Appointees: Date of Regularisation

As for the seniority between special appointees (those regularised under the Special Absorption Rules) and compassionate appointees, the court held that it must be determined based on their respective dates of regularisation. The court directed that this criterion be applied, noting that seniority disputes should be examined on broad principles with a common sense approach, avoiding forensic examination of insignificant details.

"As to inter se seniority between the Compassionate appointees and the Special appointees, we hold that the same must be decided on the basis of their date of regularisation. This is one criterion which is most suited in the present scenario. Any inter se dispute regarding seniority of two sets of employees should be examined on broad principles with a common sense approach," the court observed.

The court dismissed the transferred cases filed by M. Prema and others challenging Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules and disposed of the civil appeals with the direction that the inter se seniority of special and compassionate appointees be fixed according to their date of regularisation.

Immediate Consequence

The judgment modifies the common order of the Madras High Court dated 3 April 2006 and effectively establishes that:

  1. Direct recruits of the 1983 TNPSC batch rank senior to both special appointees (Rule 10(a)(i) and compassionate appointees.
  2. Compassionate appointees cannot claim seniority over direct recruits based on an earlier appointment date.
  3. Inter se seniority between special and compassionate appointees will be determined by their respective dates of regularisation.

The effect is that in the combined seniority list for Junior Assistants, Typists, and Steno-typists in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and related departments, the1985-87 appointees from the 1983 TNPSC exam will be placed above the special appointees who were regularised in June 1984 and above the compassionate appointees who were appointed later in 1985. The state government's stance that compassionate appointees cannot claim seniority over direct recruits has been upheld, and the earlier order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal onseniority has been effectively set aside.

No order as to costs was passed.