Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

Can seniority be given retrospectively from the date a vacancy occurred, consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

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

Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of a vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless the relevant service rules expressly so provide; any departure from the date-of-entry criterion must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and cannot be extended to a person not even borne in the cadre if doing so would adversely affect employees validly appointed in the meantime.

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 20Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court further in the case of Amit Singh Vs. Ravindra Nath Pandey and others reported in (2022) 20 SCC 559, had held as under: “27. This Court in Pawan Pratap Singh case [Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 481] held that the effective date of selection has to be understood in the context of the service rules under which the appointment is made. It may mean the date on which the process of selection starts with the issuance of advertisement or the factum of preparation of the select list, as the case may be. This Court further held that the inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. It held that the date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. It further held that any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It further held that the seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It held that the seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime. 28. A Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao [P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao, (2013) 8 SCC 693 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 690] has approved the law as laid down by this Court in Pawan Pratap Singh [Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 481] .”

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 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?

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