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?

Rule 35(aa) fixes seniority with reference to the date on which a person is appointed to the Service, Class, Category or Grade, not the date the vacancy arose or the year of the recruitment notification. The petitioner's seniority was fixed from her date of appointment under G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 10.11.2005 and joining on 16.11.2005, not from 1998-1999 when the vacancies against which she was selected arose.

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)

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India