THE STATE OF TAMILNADU vs R. BAKYARAJ

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.A.Nos.2811, 3778 and 3826 of 2025
and
C.M.P.Nos.22766, 31237 and 31425 of 2025,
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, School Education
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Finance Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
4. The State Project Director, SSA,
DPI Campus, Chennai - 600 006.
… Appellants
-vs-
1. R.Bakyaraj
2. V.Seshathiri
3. S.Bharathi
4. Tharmaprabhu
5. S.Ponuvel
6. Muthamil Selvi
7. P.Sudanthira Sumathi
8. Mullai
9. Prakash
10. Saravanan
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
11. The Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB),
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
… Respondents
W.A.No.3778 of 2025
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, School Education
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Finance Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
4. The State Project Director, SSA,
DPI Campus, Chennai - 600 006.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. P.Vimala
2. D.Santhanam
3. A.Sivan
4. P.Alagurani
5. M.Stella
6. J.Umadevi
7. C.Manjunathan
8. S.Manichandran
9. K.Muraligokulakrishnan
10. V.Balamurugan
11. M.Arumugam
12. A.Vijayalakshmi
13. S.Mariyappan
14. K.Chandrasekaran
15. R.Vijayakumar
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
16. S.Maheswari
17. S.M.Sathikbatcha
18. P.Muthupandi
19. B.Subha
20. The Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB),
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
..Respondent(s)
W.A.No.3826 of 2025
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, School Education
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Finance Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
4. The State Project Director, SSA,
DPI Campus, Chennai - 600 006.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. D.Ramajayam
2. V.Govindaraj
3. P.Saraswathy
4. T.Isaiyaruvi
5. T.Anbukarasi
6. C.Priya
7. M.Dinesh Babu
8. A.R.Abbas Ali
9. S.B.Thamizhnesan
10. J.Karthik
11. E.Revathi
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
12. E.Ayothi
13. R.Santhi
14. K.Vasudevan
15. C.Vijayakumar
16. R.Sankar
17. C.Elangovan
18. K.Harisankar
19. P.Murugesan
20. K.Buvaneswari
21. A.Jayaprakasan
22. C.Molugu
23. R.Harikrishnan
24. K.Sankari
25. S.Anandhan
26. M.Annamalai
27. K.Thiripurasundari
28. K.Venkatesan
29. G.Vadivelu
30. M.Muniraj
31. G.Pandeeswari
32. R.Revathi
33. M.Bhuvaneswari
34. S.Vasanthi
35. R.Lakshmi
36. C.Mangaiyarkarasi
37. R.Santhi
38. G.Udhaya Banu
39. R.Tamilmalar
40. M.Hema malini Devi
41. K.Balasundari
42. G.Rajapandian
43. K.Saraswathi
44. A.Saritha
45. D.Ambika Devi
46. K.Amuthavalli
47. V.Sarathi
48. M.Sivakumar
49. N.Marimuthu
50. G.Malarvizhi
51. M.Sageetha Banu
52. R.Chitra
53. A.Anburani
54. K.Kogila
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
55. R.llayaraja
56. M.Kiruba
57. N.Pargunan
58. R.Rameshwari
59. C.Devika
60. D.Natesan
61. G.Pushpalatha
62. C.Suguna
63. S.Indirani
64. M.Jeyalakshmi
65. S.Lakshmi
66. N.Amutha
67. S.Kumar
68. N.Veeramani
69. The Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB)
Rep. By its Member Secretary,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
..Respondent(s)
Common Prayer: To set aside the orders dated 21.12.2023, 20.12.2023
and 09.11.2023 in W.P.Nos.35016, 35419 and 29048 of 2023.
For Appellants: Ms.C.N.G.Niraimathi
Govt. Counsel (in all)
For Respondents: Mr.T.Balachandran for R1 to R10
(in W.A.No.2811 of 2025)
No Appearance in
(W.A.Nos.3778 and 3826 of 2025)
*
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.)
The present Intra Court appeals have been instituted under
Clause 15 of Letters Patent by the State of Tamil Nadu, challenging writ
orders dated 21.12.2023, 20.12.2023 and 09.11.2023 in
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
W.P.Nos.35016, 35419 and 29048 of 2023. State preferred present
appeals mainly on the ground that the financial implication of the order of
the writ Court would run into several Thousand Crores and more so, that
the writ order has been passed based on an erroneous interpretation of
the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay Cell)
Department, dated 26.08.2010.
2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned
Government Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the
issue on hand is covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment of this
Court dated 08.06.2026 passed in W.A.838 of 2026. She has also
produced a copy of the said judgment. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are extracted hereunder:
“14. A reading of the above portions of G.O.Ms.No.340 would be
sufficient to understand that the said Government Order is not a Pay
Commission order, but rectification of anomaly made pursuant to the
recommendations of the One Man Commission to redress the
grievances of contract employees appointed before 01.06.2009 and after
01.06.2009 due to the administrative delay.
15. Let us now consider the right of respondents / Government
employees regarding the revised pay in the context of G.O.Ms.No.340.
16. Rule 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service
Rules, which were in force during the relevant point of time in respect of
the appointments of the respondents, defines that “A person is said to be
"appointed to a service” when in accordance with these rules or in
accordance with the rules applicable at the time, as the case may be, he
discharges, for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of
such service or commences the probation, instruction or training
prescribed for members thereof.”
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
17. Even in the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of
Service) Act, 2016, Section 3(b) defines “appointed to a service” means
when a person appointed in accordance with this Act or in accordance
with the rules applicable at the time, as the case may be, discharges, for
the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or
commences the probation, instruction or training prescribed for members
thereof.
18. Therefore, mere selection or publication of a selection list
would not confer any right on the candidates.
19. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Prafulla Kumar Swain Vs. Prakash Chandra Misra 1993 (Supp) 3 SCC
181, has pointed out the distinction between selection and appointment
on the following lines:-
“The term recruitment connotes and clearly, signifies enlistment,
acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly,-this is
not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction, the
word “appointment” means an actual act of posting a person to a
particular office.”
20. Further in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raqhvir Singh Yadev
1994 (6) SCC 151, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, that the
Government is entitled even to cancel a selection and conduct a fresh
recruitment. The candidates, who got selected, may only have a
legitimate expectation to be considered but, according to the rules in
vogue. Therefore, only by mere recruitment, enlisting or selection the
candidates cannot claim a right on par with those who were actually
appointed to the service.
21. An employer is well within his powers to cancel the selection
at any point of time and the right accrues only after issuance of the
appointment order and not otherwise. In the present case, the claim of
the respondents is mainly based on the fact that they were selected and
that final selection list was published on 07.11.2008. Therefore,
according to them, they are to be construed as having been appointed
into Government service prior to 01.06.2009 and thus, they are entitled
to the monetary benefit under G.O.Ms.No.340.
22. Such a claim is baseless in view of the legal position
that mere participation in the selection process or even selection by itself
does not confer any right on a candidate. Admittedly, the respondents
were appointed only after 02.06.2009 and their pay was fixed in
accordance with the pay rules in force as on their respective dates of
appointment. Thus, they cannot claim any pay benefit that was granted
to the contract employees appointed in the year 2003 during general
strike period, and permitted to participate in the Special Competitive
Examination conducted by TNPSC and subsequently absorbed into the
regular establishment in various Government Departments.
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
23. Admittedly, the respondents are appointed into Government
service after 01.06.2009, and granted revised scale of pay in force as on
their respective dates of appointment. They had not drawn any pay in
the pre~revised scale of pay, which was considered under
G.O.Ms.No.340 in respect of the contract employees. G.O.Ms.No.340
would not apply to the employees appointed into Government service
after 01.06.2009.
24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C.Chandra and
Others vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279,
held the fixation of pay is a delicate mechanism which requires various
considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational
qualification, mode of appointment, etc., and it has a cascading effect. If
there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups, even
the employees in the two groups are doing identical work, then they
cannot be granted higher pay, if there is no complete and wholesale
identity. It is further submitted that fixing the pay scales by the Courts
by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high
constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs
of the State.
25. In the present case, the pay and allowances admissible to the
respondents from their respective dates of appointment after 02.06.2009
were granted based on the pay rules in force as on their respective dates
of appointment. Therefore, they cannot claim any financial benefits in
comparison with the contract employees who were appointed in the year
2003 and subsequently, absorbed into regular service based on the
Special Competitive Examination. G.O.Ms.No.340 was issued pursuant
to the recommendation of the One Man Commission to redress the
grievance of a particular group of employees who faced discrimination on
account of the administrative delay in issuing appointment orders.
26. This Court is of the considered view that the learned counsel
for the respondents referred to certain earlier orders of this Court
granting relief to employees who were appointed after 01.06.2009.
Pertinently, the scope of G.O.Ms.No.340 was not considered in those
judgments, nor the distinction between the contract employees absorbed
into regular Government service through the Special Competitive
Examination are discussed.
27. In view of the fact that those factual aspects were not
considered in the context of G.O.Ms.No.340, the said judgments cannot
be followed as precedents. In the event of considering those judgments,
it would result in a huge financial loss running into several Thousand
Crores to the State Government, which exactly the arguments placed
before this Court by the learned Advocate General.
28. In view of the above factual discussion and legal position
considered, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that
the writ order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
allowed. The impugned order 18.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.18408 of
2023 is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
3. Considering the fact that the issue on hand is squarely
covered by the earlier judgment of Division Bench of this Court (supra),
the present Writ Appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated
21.12.2023, 20.12.2023 and 09.11.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.35016,
35419 and 29048 of 2023 are set aside . No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
23-06-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AR
To:
The Member Secretary,
Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB)
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )

2026:MHC:2453
WA No. 2811 of 2025
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.
AR
W.A.Nos.2811, 3778 and 3826 of 2025
23-06-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2026 04:04:44 pm )