Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

Can a direct recruitee claim seniority over promotees appointed earlier where the selection process for the direct-recruitment vacancy was delayed by a government ban on filling posts by direct recruitment?

K.V.Reshma, Deputy Director (Liaison Officer), O/o. The Industries Commissioner & Director of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005 v. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises [E1.(1)] Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009

W.P.No.6108 of 2012 · W.P.No.6108 of 2012
Coram: Justice T. Vinod Kumar · Justice E.I.I

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Rule 35(aa) Tamil Nadu State and…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A direct recruitee cannot claim seniority over candidates validly promoted from the Feeder category during the interregnum caused by the ban on direct recruitment, since a direct recruitee takes seniority only from the date she is borne into the cadre and starts discharging duties, while the promotees had already joined the promoted post through transfer by promotion on their respective earlier dates.

Headnote

Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 — Rule 35(aa) — Constitution of India, 1950 — Arts.14 & 16 — Seniority — Direct recruit versus promotee — Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 — r.35(aa) — Seniority fixed from date of appointment to the Service, Class, Category or Grade — Held: Where recruitment to a post is by more than one method, seniority under Rule 35(aa) is reckoned from the date the person is appointed to the Service, Class, Category or Grade, and not from the date the vacancy arose. A direct recruit is borne into service only from the date she joins duty pursuant to the appointment order, and cannot claim seniority from an anterior year merely because the vacancy against which she was selected related to that year. (¶10, 21) Constitution of India, 1950 — Arts.14 & 16 — Retrospective seniority impermissible absent rules — Held further: Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of a vacancy, nor given retrospectively, unless the service rules expressly so provide, and any departure from the date-of-entry criterion must be consistent with Articles 14 and 16. A direct recruitee takes seniority from the date she starts discharging duties of the post borne on the cadre, while a temporary or ad hoc appointee gets seniority only from the date of regular appointment. (¶18, 20) Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 — r.35(aa) — Delay in completing selection process — No entitlement to seniority over promotees — On facts, held: Delay by the respondents in completing the direct-recruitment selection process, occasioned by a ban on filling vacancies by direct recruitment, did not entitle the petitioner to seniority over candidates validly promoted from the Feeder category during the interregnum, since none of those promotees remained on an unregularised ad hoc basis as on the date the petitioner joined duty. The challenge to the impugned proceedings refixing seniority was misconceived and the writ petition was dismissed. (¶16, 19, 22, 23)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 16Though the vacancies against which the petitioner was appointed related to the year 1998-1999, since there had been a ban on appointment by direct recruitment, the petitioner though was selected in the year 2002, could not be issued an appointment letter and it is only after the said ban was lifted, the respondents issued the Government Order for appointment of the candidates, who had taken part in the selection process pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2000. It is only after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 10.11.2005, the petitioner had joined the service on 16.11.2005 and thus, was borne into service on the said date. Since, the petitioner was borne into service on 16.11.2005, the petitioner cannot seek seniority over the candidates, who were selected through the internal process of transfer by promotion, against the vacancies which were allowed to be filled up by promotion as there was no restriction/ban on such recruitment, and the said selected candidates having been promoted and discharging duties, the petitioner who had subsequently joined the service, cannot claim seniority over the candidates, who were promoted to the said post by way of transfer from Feeder category, only because she is a direct recruitee.

Paragraph 18The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had referred to the decision in V.Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1995 Suppl (1) SCC 572) wherein it was held that “ it was also held that the direct recruitee takes his seniority from the date on which he starts discharging the duties of the post borne on the Cadre, while a temporary appointee appointed de hors the Rules or on ad hoc basis or to a fortuitous vacancy gets seniority from the date of regular appointment.

Paragraph 19It appears to this Court it is on the basis of the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is under the impression that she should be placed over the promotees, without noting that the Apex Court having held that a direct recruitee takes seniority from the date of discharging the duties which in the case of petitioner is admittedly from 16.11.2005. If only the respondents had placed employees who were working on ad hoc basis as on the date of petitioner joining the duty i.e., on 16.11.2005 and who’s services not regularised against the said post as on the date of petitioner joining the service, the petitioner can feel aggrieved. However, it is neither shown to this Court of any private respondent working on adhoc basis on the day of petitioner joining the service being placed above the petitioner in seniority though was working on adhoc basis.

Acts & Sections

Rule 35(aa) Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service RulesArticle 14 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 16 of the Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of K.V.Reshma, Deputy Director (Liaison Officer), O/o. The Industries Commissioner & Director of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005 v. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises [E1.(1)] Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955, from what date is a direct recruit's seniority reckoned under Rule 35(aa) where recruitment is by more than one method?Can seniority be given retrospectively from the date a vacancy occurred, consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections