Sivaraman M.Sc Ph.D vs The Chairman

WP No. 31425 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 31425 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA011884692022}
and
WMP No. 30869 of 2022
1. Sivaraman
2. P. Vijayalakshmi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No. 76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No. 76, Mount Salai Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
3. Kavita Leonard
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to impugned order of the 1st respondent in Proc. No TNPCB / Per /
P6 / 014739 / 2022 dated 07.09.2022 and the quash the same and
consequently direct the 1st respondent to re-fix the seniority of the petitioners
as per the original appointment in the year 1997 in accordance with Rule
22(d) of The Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Regulations and
promote the petitioners to the post of Chief Scientific Officer.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.M.Vijayan
Mr.K.M.Vijayan Associates
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
For Respondent(s): Mrs.Dakshyani Reddy,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Madhuri Donti Reddy,
Standing Counsel (for R1 & R2)
No appearance (for R3)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order dated 07.09.2022, whereby the third respondent was promoted to the
post of Chief Scientific Officer.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners were recruited against six backlog vacancies reserved for
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. During the year
1997, eleven posts of Environmental Scientist, including six backlog
vacancies reserved for the SC category, were filled through the Employment
Exchange. However, while fixing seniority, instead of placing the candidates
(petitioners) recruited against the backlog vacancies above those recruited
against the regular vacancies, the respondents placed the petitioners below
the candidates recruited against the regular vacancies. It is the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioners that, as per the third proviso to Section
27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2016 for short), selection for
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
appointment against backlog vacancies shall be made first, followed by
selection under the normal communal roster. According to the petitioners, the
said provision indicates that candidates appointed against backlog vacancies
are entitled to preferential seniority over the candidates appointed against
regular vacancies.
3. To substantiate the above contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relies upon the third proviso to the said provision and submits
that, where candidates belonging to the SC community are not available
against the vacancies earmarked for them, a second attempt shall be made to
select candidates belonging to the SC community through direct recruitment
during the same recruitment year or, as early as possible, before the next
direct recruitment. According to the petitioners, the said provision indicates
that candidates selected against backlog vacancies must be placed above the
candidates selected against regular vacancies. In support of his contention,
the learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shobana , reported in (2021) 4 SCC 686. He
would further submit that, in the establishment list as on 01.10.1998, the
candidates selected against backlog vacancies were placed above the other
candidates, but their positions were subsequently revised without any valid
basis. Hence, it is his submission that the candidates selected against backlog
vacancies ought to be placed above those selected against regular vacancies.
__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first and
second respondents would stoutly oppose the above contentions and submit
that the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of
maintainability and on merits. It is her further contention that the seniority
list was revised on 14.04.2013 and that the petitioners have approached this
Court by filing the present Writ Petition after a lapse of nearly nine years.
She would also contend that, under Rule 35-A of the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TNSSS Rules’ for
short), seniority is determined in accordance with the rank obtained by the
candidates. However, the petitioners have not impleaded the other candidates
recruited during the year 1997, whose seniority would be affected by the
relief sought for. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed
for non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. It is also the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that
the petitioners had earlier filed W.P.No.1033 of 2016 seeking refixation of
their seniority in accordance with Rule 22 of the the TNSSS Rules, with
reference to their original appointment during the year 1997. By an order
dated 28.02.2018, the learned Single Judge directed the first respondent to
consider the representation submitted by the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
first respondent, by order dated 05.06.2020, rejected the claim of the
petitioners. However, the petitioners have not challenged the said rejection
order. Therefore, having failed to challenge the said order, the petitioners
cannot now seek consequential relief. Furthermore, the present Writ Petition
is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence.
Hence, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that, apart from the merits
of the case, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the above
grounds. She would further contend that seniority has been fixed in
accordance with the rank obtained by the candidates.
6. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that, in view of
the judgment of this Court in N. Santosh Kumar v. Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission in W.A.No.2705 of 2012 etc. batch, dated 31.03.2015,
as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v.
State of Haryana and Others , reported in MANU/SC/0213/2003, seniority
ought have to be determined in accordance with the rank obtained by the
candidates in the recruitment process, while the roster position is relevant for
determining the vacancy against which a candidate is appointed. It is also her
contention that the mere fact that the petitioners were recruited against
backlog vacancies would not, by itself, confer upon them any preferential
right to seniority over candidates who secured higher marks and
demonstrated greater merit. She would also rely upon the judgment of the
__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.991
and 992 of 2018, dated 21.08.2024, and Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board Revised Service Regulations, 2010. The learned Senior
Counsel would further contend that, though the petitioners were recruited
against backlog vacancies, their positions were fixed by adopting a hybrid
method that took into account both the communal roster and merit.
Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance in this regard. Hence,
she prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing on either side.
8. The only point that arises for consideration in the present Writ
Petition is whether a candidate recruited against a backlog vacancy is entitled
to be placed above the candidates recruited against regular vacancies, for the
purpose of determining seniority.
9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the
third proviso to Section 27(f) of the Act, 2016. However, since the said Act
came into force only in the year 2016, whereas the recruitment in question
took place during the year 1997, the relevant provisions of the TNSSS Rules,
which were in force at the time of recruitment, have to be considered. The
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
provision corresponding to the third proviso to Section 27(f) of the Act, 2016
is the third proviso to Rule 22(d) of the TNSSS Rules, For ready reference,
this Court deems it appropriate to extract both the provisions hereunder:-
“27 (f) of the Act, 2016
Third proviso to Section 27(f)
Provided also that in the case of selection for
appointment by direct recruitment, with effect on and from
the 1st April 1989, there shall be a ban on dereservation of
vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to any of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Most
Backward Classes and Denotified Communities to be
appointed by direct recruitment. But, the above ban on
dereservation of vacancies shall not be applicable to the
vacancies reserved for the Backward Classes (other than
Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities),
Backward Class Muslims and, therefore, if qualified and
suitable candidates belonging to any of the Backward
Classes (other than Most Backward Classes and Denotified
Communities), Backward Class Muslims are not available
for appointment, the turn so allotted to them shall lapse and
the vacancy shall be filled by the next turn in the order of
rotation. If sufficient number of qualified and suitable
candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward Classes and Denotified
Communities are not available for selection for
appointment for the vacancies reserved for them by direct
recruitment in the first attempt of recruitment, then, a
second attempt shall be made for selection of the
candidates belonging to the respective communities by
direct recruitment in the same recruitment year or as early
as possible before the next direct recruitment for selection
of candidates against such vacancies. If the required
number of candidates belonging to such communities are
not available even then, the vacancies for which selection
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
could not be made shall remain unfilled until the next
recruitment year treating them as “backlog” vacancies. In
the subsequent year, when direct recruitment is made for
the vacancies of that year, namely, the current vacancies,
the “backlog” vacancies shall also be announced for direct
recruitment, keeping the vacancies of the particular
recruitment year, namely, the current year vacancies and
the “backlog” vacancies as two distinct groups as
illustrated in Schedule-IX. The selection for appointment
for the next direct recruitment shall be made first for the
“backlog” vacancies and then the normal rotation shall be
followed:
22(d) of the TNSSS Rules
Third proviso to Rule 22 (d)
Provided also that in the case of selection for appointment
by direct recruitment, with effect on and from the Ist April
1989, there shall be a ban on dereservation of vacancies
reserved for the candidates belonging to any of the
Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, Most Backward
Classes and Denotified Communities to be appointed by
direct recruitment. But the above ban on dereservation of
vacancies shall not be applicable to the vacancies reserved
for the Backward Classes (other than Most Backward
Classes and Denotified Communities), Backward Class
Muslims and therefore if qualified and suitable candidates
belonging to any of the Backward Classes (other than Most
Backward Classes and Denotified Communities), Backward
Class Muslims are not available for appointment, the turn,
so allotted to them shall lapse and the vacancy shall be
filled by the next turn in the order of rotation. If sufficient
number of qualified and suitable candidates belong to any
of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Most Backward
Classes and De-notified Communities are not available for
selection for appointment for the vacancies reserved for
them by direct recruitment in the first attempt of
recruitment, then a second attempt shall be made for
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
selection of the candidates belonging to the respective
communities by direct recruitment in the same recruitment
year or as early as possible before the next direct
recruitment for selection of candidates against such
vacancies. If the required number of candidates belonging
to such communities are not available even then, the
vacancies for which selection could not be made shall
remain unfilled until the next recruitment year treating
them as “backlog” vacancies. In the subsequent year,
when direct recruitment is made for the vacancies of that
year (called the current vacancies), the “backlog”
vacancies shall also be announced for direct recruitment,
keeping the vacancies of the particular recruitment year,
namely, the current year vacancies and the “backlog”
vacancies as two distinct groups as illustrated in Schedule
V to this part. While in respect of vacancies for the year of
recruitment, the normal procedure relating to the
calculation of vacancies reserved for the candidates
belonging to such communities as well as the instructions
that not more than fifty percent of the vacancies shall be
reserved for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
communities and physically handicapped shall apply,
selection for appointment for all the “backlog” vacancies
reserved for such communities shall be made by the
candidates belonging to such communities without any
restriction as they belong to distinct group of “backlog”
vacancies. The selection for appointment in the next direct
recruitment shall be made first for the “backlog” vacancies
and then the normal rotation shall be followed:”
10. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that, whenever backlog vacancies arise, such vacancies must be
filled first in accordance with the relevant rule. He would further submit that,
where candidates belonging to the SC community are not available, steps
__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
must be taken to fill the vacancies during the same recruitment year or, as
early as possible, before the next direct recruitment. According to the
petitioners, this requirement indicates that candidates appointed against
backlog vacancies are entitled to be placed above candidates appointed
against regular vacancies. However, this Court is unable to accept the above
submission.
11. On a close reading of the relevant rule, it is evident that, if
candidates belonging to certain categories, namely, backward classes other
than the most backward classes and denotified communities, and backward
class Muslims, are not available, the turn allotted to them shall lapse. In
respect of the other communities, the rule provides for treating the unfilled
vacancies as backlog vacancies. If no candidate is available even during the
second recruitment attempt, the department may seek exemption from the
ban, as provided under the relevant rule. Therefore, the object of the
provision is to ensure that backlog vacancies are to be filled first in
accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the benefit of reservation
is not defeated by the continued non-availability of candidates.
12. It is relevant to note that, though the learned counsel for the
petitioners contends that, where candidates belonging to the SC community
are not available, the rule requires recruitment to be undertaken during the
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
same recruitment year or, as early as possible, before the next direct
recruitment. A close reading of the proviso makes it clear that the
requirement is not confined exclusively to the SC community but also
extends to other communities covered by the provision. In this regard, it is
relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
K.Shobana's case (cited supra). Though the learned counsel for the
petitioners would contend that the ratio laid down in the said judgment
supports their claim, this Court is unable to accept the said submission, as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the word "first" cannot be
construed so as to disregard the merit of the candidates or the rank secured by
them.
13. On a perusal of the relevant rules, it is evident that Rule 22 of the
TNSSS Rules deals with reservation in appointment and does not provide for
determination of seniority. On the other hand, Rule 35-A of the TNSSS Rules
deals with seniority. For ready reference, the relevant rule is extracted
hereunder:
“35. Seniority._ (a) The seniority of a person in a service,
class, category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to
a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the rank
obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up
by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or other
Appointing Authority, as the case may be, subject to the rule
of reservation where it applies. The date of commencement of
his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty
irrespective of his seniority.”
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
According to the above rule, seniority is to be determined with reference to
the rank obtained by the candidate in the list of approved candidates.
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar's case (cited supra), wherein the
principle that merit forms the basis for determining seniority was considered.
However, in P.Madhu v. K. Nanthakumar , in Contempt Petition (Civil)
Diary No.6415 of 2021, dated 18.04.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
prescribed a cut-off date and directed that seniority be revised in accordance
with merit in cases where the recruitment process was conducted after
10.03.2003. In the present case, the petitioners were recruited during the year
1997. Therefore, the question of revisiting their seniority by applying the
principle laid down in Bimlesh Tanwar's case (cited supra), in the manner
sought by the petitioners, does not arise. For ready reference, the relevant
portion of the judgment in P.Madhu's case (cited supra) is extracted
hereunder:-
“17. We, therefore, though are not inclined to disturb the
th
seniority lists which are finalized prior to 10 March, 2003
wherein the benefit is granted to either of the parties i.e. as
per the roster or as per the seniority list, the seniority list
th
finalized after 10 March, 2003 will have to be re-visited in
accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Bimlesh
Tanwar (supra) and the first judgement of the Madras High
Court.”
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
15. In view of the above principles, where seniority has already been
determined by the department on the basis of merit in accordance with the
applicable rules, such determination does not warrant interference merely
because some candidates were recruited against backlog vacancies. In the
present case, the second respondent, in their communication dated
15.02.2019, have referred to the marks obtained by the individual candidates
in the written examination. The petitioners have not raised any dispute
regarding the marks secured by the candidates. For ready reference, the
relevant portion of the said communication, is extracted hereunder:-
“Out of the 11 candidates one candidate Thiru D.Rajkumar had
resigned on 01.08.2005 and hence, the seniority of the remaining 10
Env. Scientists were prepared based on the communal rotation
followed at the time of recruitment and in the order of merit as follows
vide Bd.Proc.No.Per/P6/34535/2012, dated 14.04.2013:-
Sl.
No.
Name Community Date of
Marks
obtained in
the Written
Date of
joining in
Birth
TNPSC
Test
Board
1. D.Rajkumar
BC 21.07.1973 52 21.07.1997
(Resigned)
2. N.Vadivu SC 30.11.1971 46 25.07.1977
3. Kavitha Chellappa OC 09.10.1973 54 23.07.1997
4. K.K.Thiruvalluvan MBC 29.04.1967 52 01.08.1997
5. Tamil Selvi OC(W) 29.06.1974 46 23.07.1997
6. S.Subramani SC 06.05.1970 44 01.08.1997
7. B.Helanmary MBC(W) 20.07.1971 48 21.07.1997
8. A.Manisekar SC 03.05.1969 42 23.07.1997
9. P.Vijayalakshmi SC 17.04.1970 41 23.07.1997
10. M.Sakthivel SC 01.01.1972 41 07.11.1997
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
11. A.Sivaraman SC 20.05.1973 41 03.11.1997
All of them belonging to SC Community got recruited in the year
1997 against existing vacancies. They have requested to fix their
seniority ahead of other recruits of the same year and restore the
seniority of all six of the above Env.Scientists fixing their seniority
above Thiru.D.Rajkumar (Resigned) as published in the
Establishment list during 1998.”
16. On a perusal of the above list, it is evident that the candidates
placed at Serial Nos.2 and 6, though selected against backlog vacancies under
the communal roster, were accommodated in positions favourable to them in
SC roster notwithstanding their lower marks. It appears that, in order to
extend the benefit of the communal roster to those candidates, their positions
were fixed by taking into account the general roster. Therefore, this Court is
of the firm view that the issue relating to backlog vacancies has to be
considered in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K.Shobana's case (cited supra), whereas seniority has to be
determined in accordance with the rank obtained by the candidates under the
applicable rules. In such circumstances, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the seniority determined by the second respondent in their
proceedings dated 15.02.2019. Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned
order is liable to be rejected.
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
17. Though this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order on merits, the petitioners' claim also suffers from certain
defects relating to maintainability. As rightly contended by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the first and second respondents, the seniority list
relating to the recruitment of the year 1997 was revised on 14.04.2013.
However, the petitioners have not impleaded several candidates whose
seniority would be directly affected if the relief sought for by them were to be
granted. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the
present Writ Petition is also liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary
parties.
18. Similarly, the petitioners had submitted a representation seeking
revision of seniority on the grounds now raised in the present Writ Petition.
The said representation was rejected by the first respondent by order dated
05.06.2020. However, the petitioners have not challenged the said order. This
circumstance also operates against the petitioners. Therefore, apart from the
findings on merits, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the
above ground as well.
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
19. In the result, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
05.11.2026
2/2
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No. 76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No. 76, Mount Salai Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )

WP No. 31425 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 31425 of 2022
05.11.2026
2/2
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 08:36:35 pm )