R. Ranjith Singh vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2025 INSC 612
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021]

R. RANJITH SINGH & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS


THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
& ORS.
…RESPONDENT(S)


WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20061 of 2022]


J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeals are arising out of common judgment
dated 08.01.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 25263/2009 and
Writ Petition No. 33544/2018 by High Court of Judicature at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.05.01
16:25:05 IST
Reason:


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 1 of 41


Madras, which relates to disputes concerning seniority in the
cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu.
3. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellants
before this Court were appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police
through a process of selection, keeping in view Tamil Nadu
Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to
as “1955 Rules”). The 1955 Rules have been framed in exercise
of powers conferred under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act,
1859, Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The recruitment rules provide for various
modes of recruitment which includes; (a) recruitment by transfer;
(b) direct recruitment; and (c) recruitment by promotion. In the
present case, the statutory provisions necessary to decide the
controversy involved (relating to direct recruitment and
promotion) are reproduced hereunder:
“Rule 3 – Method of Appointment and promotion
(a) (i) Appointment to the several classes and
categories shall be made as indicated in Annexure
– I.
(ii) Persons who were already included in the
‘C’ list for a particular year but not promoted before
the expiry of the validity of the said list be
considered for higher place in the list drawn in the
subsequent year on merits of each case in
preference to other persons included in the ‘C’ list.
(b) (i) Promotion to the under mentioned
posts shall be made on grounds of merit and ability


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 2 of 41


seniority being considered only where merit and
ability are approximately equal.
Inspectors – Inspector of Police
(Fingerprint)
Senior Reporter, Shorthand Bureau, Vellore
Sub-Inspectors-Sub Inspector of Police
(Fingerprint)
Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Omitted as per
G.O. No. 721 (Home dated 26-4-1 w.ef. 3-5-1990)
Reserve Inspectors
Reserve Sub-Inspectors
Reserve Assistant Sub-Inspector (Deleted in
G.O.Ms. No. 1827)
Head-Constables including Band Head
Constables, Office of the Director General of
Police, Madras.
Reserve Head Constables including
Armourers, Signallers and Motor Transport
Drivers.
(ii) Such promotion shall be made from a list
of qualified candidates suitable for promotion
prepared and finalised by
(a) The State Promotion Board constituted by
the Director General of Police, subject to the
appointment of the Government from time to time in
the case of promotion to the post of inspectors,
reserve Inspectors and Senior Reporters, Shorthand
Bureau, Madras from the ranks of Sub-Inspectors,
Reserve Sub-Inspectors and Junior Reporters,
respectively.
(b) The Range Promotion Board in respect of
various units as detailed below, subject to the


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 3 of 41


approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Police
or Commissioner of Police, Madras, as the case
may be in respect of promotion from the posts of
Head constables to Reserve Sub-Inspectors and
from the post of Had Constables to Sub-Inspectors
(There shall be only one combined list for
promotion from the rank of Head Constables to Sub-
Inspectors.
The Range Promotion Board of the Range
specified in Column (1) of the Table below shall
consist of the District and Unit specified in the
corresponding entries in Column (2) therefor.
xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx

Annexure – 1
[Referred to in rule 3(a)]

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 4 of 41


Category 2 -Sub
Inspectors of
Police
Substituted in
G.O. Ms. No.
1254 Home,
dated 16.7.92



































Added in G.O.
Ms. No. 559,
Promotion from
Head Constables
(other than Band
Head Constables,
Office of the
Director General
of Police, Madras
and Reserve
Head Constables
including
Armourers,
Signallers and
Motor /transport
Drivers).
Director
Recruitment
(G.O.Ms. No.
2635 Home
(Pol.III)-Dept. dt.
22.9.86)

Promotion and
Director
recruitment is
40:60. Provided
that not more
than 20% of
vacancies of
Direct
Recruitment
quota shall be
filled up from
among the
members of the
service in
categories 7 & 8
in Class I and
also from among
the members in
Categories 4, 5
and 6 of TNSPSS.

Provided further
if departmental
candidates are
not available to
fill up the 20% of
vacancies of
direct
recruitment from
among the
members of the
service in
categories 7 & 8
in Class I and
also from among
the members in
category 4, 5 and
6 of the TNSPSS,
candidates from
open market shall
be selected and
the vacancies
shall be filled up
accordingly.

Provided further
that 30% of
vacancies of
Direct
Recruitment
In the mofussil,
the Dy Inspr.
Genl. Of Police,
concerned and in
the Madras City
Police the
Commissioner of
Police.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 5 of 41

Rule 25 which deals with Seniority is reproduced
hereunder:
“Rule 25. Seniority:
(a) The seniority of a person in any class or
category of the service 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 appointing
authority, 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 unless he has been
appointed temporarily under sub rule (d) of rule 10
or sub rule (b) of rule 15 as the case may be.
Provided that in the case of Sub-Inspectors
(recruited direct) (category 2 of class I) the
seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the marks
obtained by them in the final examination in the
Police Training College, Vellore.
Provided further that in respect of direct
recruitment made in the years 1976 and 1979 to the
posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police, Reserve


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 6 of 41


inspectors of Police by the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission the seniority shall be fixed with
reference to the rank assigned by the Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission in the list of selected
candidates communicated by it.
Inserted in G.O.Ms.No.767, Home (Pol-III)
Dept. dated 28.3.85
Provided further that all directly recruited
Assistant Sub-Inspectors selected for direct
recruitment as Sub-Inspectors shall be placed as a
block above the fresh direct recruits but interse
again they shall retain their original seniority in the
list of Assistant Sub-Inspectors.
G.O.Ms.No.2168, Home dated 17.8.72
Provided further that in the case of Reserve
Sub-Inspectors (category 4 of class I) the seniority
shall be fixed on the completion of training with the
Special Armed Police instead of at the time of
selection but such seniority shall be liable to
revision by the Deputy Inspector General of Police
concerned, if he considered it necessary, before the
completion of probation.
Provided also that the required number of
Head Constables fit for promotion to the post of
Sub-Inspector shall be included in the order of merit
on the basis of the result of the examination
specified in clause (ii) of sub rule (e) of rule 18 and
re-arranged in the order of seniority in the post of
Head Constable.
G.O.Ms.No.1883, Home dated 5.8.87
This sub rule shall apply to any member of
the service other than Sub-Inspectors appointed on
st
or after 1 January 1962. It shall also apply to Sub-
Inspectors appointed on or 25.8.1965.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 7 of 41


(b) The transfer of a person from one class or
category of the service to another class or category
carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be
treated as first appointment to the latter for
purposes of seniority and the seniority of a person
so transferred, shall be determined with reference
to the rank in the class or category from which he
was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt
arises in applying this sub rule seniority shall be
determined by the appointing authority.
(c) Where a member of the service in any
class or category is reduced to a lower class or
category he shall be placed at the top of the latter
unless the authority ordering such reduction directs
that he shall take rank in such lower class or
category next below any specific member thereof.
(d) The seniority of any person in a service or
post of the merged territory of Pudukottai who is
absorbed in a post in this service shall be
determined as follows:
(i) if he is absorbed in a post similar to that
which he was formerly holding in the service of the
merged territory of Pudukottai, his seniority shall
be determined by the date from which he was
holding the former post continuously.
(ii) if he is absorbed in a post of a higher
cadre carrying a higher scale of pay than that which
he was formerly holding in the service of the merged
territory of Pudukottai, his seniority shall be
determined by the date on which he joined the post
in this service.
(iii) if he is absorbed in a post other than
those specified in clauses (i) and (ii) which do not
improve his cadre and scale of pay in the service of


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 8 of 41


the merged territory of Pudukottai his seniority
shall be determined on the basis of merit.
(e) The seniority of qualified special Armed
Policemen appointed by transfer as Constables in
this service shall be determined by the date of their
first appointment in this service for purposes of
confirmation in vacancies in this service.”
4. Under the 1955 Rules, until the year 1995, Head
Constables were considered for promotion to the post of Sub-
Inspectors under the promotion quota fixed for them and it is an
undisputed fact that there was no quota prescribed for them to
participate in the direct recruitment process which was meant
only for open market candidates. Head Constables serving the
police department submitted various representations to the
government. Keeping in view their stagnation, the Government
of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms.) No. 1054 dated 13.07.1995
reserving 20% of vacancies under the Direct Recruitment quota
to be filled up only from constabulary services. The relevant
extract of the said G.O. dated 13.07.1995 is reproduced as under:
"At present, selection to the post of Sub-Inspectors
of Police Men (direct recruitment) is conducted by
the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board. In order to encourage the Police Constables
and Head Constable to enhance their efficiency and
educational qualification for early promotion as
Sub-Inspector of Police, it is considered that a 20%
reservation could be made in the direct recruitment
to the post of Sub- Inspector of Police. Further, in
its judgment dated 18.01.1995 in O.A. No. 1368/94


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 9 of 41


(batch cases) the Hon'ble Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal suggested that it would be
desirable to have a special selection made from
among the graduates working in the department
who have completed 5 years of service against the
direct recruitment quota.
2. The Government have examined the matter in
detail. Accordingly, they direct that 20% of the
vacancies in the direct recruitment of the Sub-
Inspector of Police be reserved for the Police
Constables and Head Constables in category I and
their equivalent ranks in the Armed Reserve and
Tamilnadu Special Police Branch in category II and
III. The direct recruitment quota of Sub-Inspector of
Police will be filled 80% by from open market and
20% from serving police personnel in all the three
categories. (emphasis supplied)
3. The recruitment shall be made by Tamilnadu
Uniformed Services Recruitment Board against this
20% reservation in each Year of direct recruitment
from among the police constables and Head
Constables and their equivalent rank in Armed
Reserve and Tamilnadu Special Police who are
graduates and who have completed 5 years of
service. The candidates should have a clean record
without any punishments, other than the minor
punishments of black mark, reprimand or censure,
in the 5 years preceding the date of notification of
selection.
4. The Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board shall follow the prescribed norms and
procedures adopted in the direct recruitment
selection of Sub-Inspectors such as physical
measurements, physical efficiency test, written test
viva voce etc., The inter-se seniority of the


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 10 of 41


candidates selected against this recruitment would
be above those selected in the open competition in
the year. (emphasis supplied).”
The aforesaid G.O. further provided that inter-se seniority of the
candidates selected under the 20% in-service candidates would
be placed above those selected in open competition in that year
by way of direct recruitment. The G.O. dated 13.07.1995 was
only an executive order and the Rules framed under proviso to
Article 309 were not amended. Realising this mistake, another
G.O. (Ms.) No. 1627 dated 24.10.1996 was issued proposing to
amend the Rules in order to give 20% vacancies to in-service
candidates and to give seniority to them over and above the
directly recruited candidates recruited through the open market.
The relevant extract of G.O. dated 24.10.1996 is reproduced as
under:

“ABSTRACT

POLICE – Special recruitment to the post of Sub-
Inspectors of Police from Police Constable/Head
Constable against 20% posts of Sub-Inspectors of
Police under direct recruitment quota- Orders
issued – Amendments to Special Rules for Tamil
Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service – Issued.

HOME (POLICE.III) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms. No. 1627 Dated: 24.10.1996
Read:



SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 11 of 41


G.O.Ms. NO. 1054,;Home dated 13.07.95
Read Also:
From the Director General of Police, Chennai
Letter No. 81042/R&T(1)/95, dated 23.08.95

ORDER
The following Notification will be published
in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette:
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by
Sections 8 & 10 of the Tamil Nadu District Police
Act, 1859 (Central XXIV OF 1059) and sections 9
and 11 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 (Tamil
Nadu Act III of 1888), read with the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and of all
other powers hereunto enabling, the Governor of
Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following
amendments to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu
Special Police subordinate Service (Section 34 in
Volume III of the Tamilnadu Service Manual, 1970.)
2. The amendment hereby made shall be
th
deemed to have come into force on the 13 July
1995.

AMENDMENTS
In the said Rules,
(1) in rule 7, in sub-rule (a), in the Table,
in column (3) against the entry “2(a) Sub-
Inspectors” in column (i) thereof, for the entries, the
following entries shall be substituted, namely:


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 12 of 41


1. Promotion from Havildars or
2. Direct Recruitment;
Provided that proportion in which vacancies shall
be filled up by the methods specified in items (1)
and (2) above shall be 40: 60 percent of the Cadre:
Provided further that not more than 20%
vacancies of direct recruitment quota shall be
filled up from among the members of the service
in categories 4, 5 and 6 and also from the members
in categories 6 and 7 in Clas 1 of the Tamilnadu
Police Sub-ordinate Service, who are graduates
and have put in five years of service in their
respective categories.
(2) in rule 24, to sub-rule (a), the following
proviso shall be added, namely: -
Provided that the seniority of the Sub-Inspectors
of Police directly recruited from among the
members of this service and the members in the
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service shall be
fixed above the direct recruits selected from Open
Market in the same year.”

5. It is an undisputed fact that after issuance of the G.O. dated
24.10.1996, the proposed amendment was again not notified and
the G.O. was not brought into force by issuing notification in the
official Gazette. The State Government of Tamil Nadu, realizing
its mistake, issued another G.O. Ms. No. 461 dated 10.06.2009
proposing to amend the Rules in order to grant seniority to in-
service candidates recruited under the direct recruitment quota.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 13 of 41


The relevant extract of G.O dated 10.06.2009 are reproduced
hereunder:

“NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 8
and 10 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859
(Central Act XXIV of 1859) and sections 9 and 11 of
the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 (Tamil Nadu Act
III 1888) read with the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and of all other powers
hereunto enabling, the Governor of Tamil Nadu
hereby makes the following amendments to the
Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service (Section 31 volume III of the
Tamil Nadu Services Manual).
2. The Amendments hereby made shall be
deemed to have come into force on 19.05.2008.
AMENDMENTS

In the said Special Rules:-
(1) In rule 25, in sub-rule (a), after the fifth
proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted,
namely:-
"Provided also that the seniority of the Sub-
Inspector of Police directly recruitment from the
departmental quota shall be fixed above the direct
recruits selected from open quota in the same year;
and…”
The aforesaid G.O. also provided that it shall be deemed to come
into force with effect from 19.05.2008 and seniority of Sub-
Inspectors of Police selected from constabulary services would
be kept over and above that of the Sub-Inspectors of Police


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 14 of 41


selected from open market in the same year. The G.O. dated
10.06.2009 was again not notified in the official Gazette and the
proposed amendment was also not brought in force. The State
Government finally realizing its mistake, issued G.O. Ms. No.
868 dated 21.11.2017, which was made applicable with
retrospective effect from 13.07.1995 and is the bone of
contention before this Court. The relevant extracts of the G.O.
dated 21.11.2017 are reproduced as under:
“ABSTRACT
Public Services - Police Department - Fixation of
seniority of the 20% departmental quota candidates
for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police above the
open quota candidates - Amendment to rule 25 (a)
of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Services, 1955 – Orders-Issued.
Home (Police VI) Department
G.O.(Ms) No. 868 Dated: 21.11.2017
Read:
1. G.O.(Ms.) No.1054, Home (Pol.III) Department,
dated 13.07.1995.
2. G.O.(Ms.) No.1626, Home (Pol.III) Department,
dated 24.10.1996.
3. G.O.(Ms.) No.461, Home (Pol.VI) Department,
dated 10.06.2009.
Read also:
4. From the Director General of Police, Chennai,
letter Rc.No.168187/Rect.II(1)/2016, dated


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 15 of 41


18.01.2017, 18.07.2017, 02.08.2017 and
24.08.2017.
*

ORDER:
In the Government Order first read above,
orders were issued reserving 20% of the vacancies
in the direct recruitment quota of the Sub-Inspector
of Police for the Police Constables and Head
Constables in Category-I and their equivalent ranks
in the Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special
Police Branch in category-II and III. The 80%
direct recruitment quota of Sub-Inspector of Police
will be filled by from open market and 20% from
serving 'Police personnel in all the three categories.
It was also ordered that "the inter-se-seniority of the
candidates selected against this recruitment would
be above those selected in the open competition in
the year.
2. In the Government Order second read
above, among others, notification for making
suitable amendment regarding reservation of 20%
vacancies of the direct recruitment quota for the
departmental candidates as ordered in the
Government order first read above, to the relevant
provision of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu
Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 giving
retrospective effect from 13.07.1995 was issued. But
no amendment relating to fixing inter-se-seniority
between direct recruits. Sub-lnspectors from open
market and Departmental candidates was made in
the said Order. However in the Government Order
third read above, necessary amendment to the
relevant rules for fixing the inter-se-seniority
between the Departmental quota Sub-Inspector of


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 16 of 41


Police candidates and the direct Sub-Inspectors of
Police from the open market was issued. But the
said amendment was not notified in the Government
Gazette inadvertently.
3. The Director General of Police, Chennai,
has stated that based on the Government Order first
read above, the seniority of the 20% departmental
quota candidates of directly recruited Sub-
Inspectors of Police for the year 1994-1995, 1997-
1998 and 2001-2002 (WSIs batch) were fixed above
the open quota candidates. He has therefore
requested to re-issue amendment to Rule 25 (a) of
the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Services, 1955, fixing the seniority of
the directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police from
the Departmental quota candidates above the open
quota candidates with retrospective effect.
4. After careful examination, the Government
have decided to accept the proposal of the Director
General of Police, Chennai and to give effect to the
amendment retrospectively i.e., from 13.07.1995.
Accordingly the following notification shall be
published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette:-

NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by
sections 8 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu District Police
Act, 1859 (Central Act XXIV of 1859) and sections
9 and 11 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 (Tamil
Nadu Act III of 1888) read with proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment
to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service (Section 34 in Volume III of the
Tamil Nadu Services Manual, 1986).


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 17 of 41


2. The amendment hereby made shall be
th
deemed to have come into force on the 13 July
1995.

AMENDMENT

In the said Special Rules, in rule 25, in sub-rule (a),
after the fifth proviso, the following proviso shall be
inserted, namely:-
“Provided also that the seniority of the Sub-
Inspectors of Police directly recruited under the
departmental quota shall be fixed above the persons
directly recruited under open quota in the same
recruitment.”
The consequential amendment was also made in the
recruitment rules meaning thereby that the G.O. dated 21.11.2017
was also notified in the official Gazette, making the amendment
applicable with retrospective effect.
6. The facts of the case reveal that the constables working in
the police department in the year 1995 were given 20% of the
vacancies to compete under the direct recruitment quota and they
were to be given seniority over and above the other 80%
remaining constables recruited through open market.
7. A large number of writ petitions were preferred before the
High Court of Madras challenging the fixation of seniority and it
was brought to the notice of the High Court that by virtue of the
amendment incorporated by G.O. dated 21.11.2017, persons who
were less meritorious in the process of selection were placed over


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 18 of 41


and above meritorious candidates. The categoric examples were
given in the writ petition and have also been given before this
Court which reveal that out of 100 marks, the Appellant Ranjith
Singh had secured 79.10 and he was the first rank holder; the
Appellant Premanand had secured 78.60, Jawahar had secured
77.56 and Srinivasan had secured 77.21. The other Appellants
have also secured very high percentage of marks and the 147
candidates selected from the department as against 20% quota
have secured lower marks than the candidates who were selected
from the open market. Example of one Santhakumari who is a
departmental candidate finds mention who had secured 69.27
marks. Unfortunately, Santhakumari has been placed over and
above persons who have obtained higher marks. The High Court
of Madras has dismissed the Writ Petitions of direct recruitees
and the operative paragraph of the order as contained in paras 31,
32 and 33 reads as under:
“ 31. As regards the seniority of the remaining 600
directly recruited candidates and the 267 in-service
candidates, admittedly, the in-service candidates
have to be given a preference especially when they
have already earned hands-on experience in the
department and had learnt the nuances in the police
department. Such experience gained by them would
certainly overweigh against the 600 candidates
appointed along with them on 02.06.1997. In order
to strike a balance among the 600 candidates
appointed along with the 267 in-service candidates,
we have to adopt a yardstick which would be just


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 19 of 41


and reasonable. If a method is adopted for
reckoning the seniority among the directly recruited
600 candidates and the in-service candidates,
preference will have to certainly be given to the in-
service candidates. We wish to reiterate that the
Government, while earmarking 20% of the
vacancies for the direct recruitment quota of the
Sub-Inspector of Police for existing Police
Constables and Head Constables, imposed a
condition that they must have completed five years
of service and that they should not have been
subjected to any disciplinary proceedings or
punishment. Therefore, we can construe that only
those candidates who have a clean track record
have been allowed to participate in the selection
process as in-service candidates and this is also one
of the reasons why they should be given preference
above the 600 directly recruited candidates. If such
a preference is not given to the in-service
candidates, at least for determining their seniority,
it would frustrate them as they have taken the
mantle much ahead of the 600 directly recruited
candidates.
32. On behalf of the directly recruited candidates,
much has been argued that the amendments brought
in after 22 years giving preference to in-service
candidates is unreasonable and it has no nexus
sought to be achieved. It is also vehemently
contended that the statutory rules cannot be
overridden by executive order and therefore, the
amendment brought in to Rule 25 (e) of the Special
Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service is
illegal and it will not give preference to the in-
service candidates. We are unable to accept this
contention advanced on behalf of the directly
recruited candidates. The Government is always


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 20 of 41


empowered to bring in amendment to the Statutory
Rules. It cannot be gainsaid that such amendments
were brought in after a great length of delay. The
power to bring in amendment to a statutory rule is
always vested with the State legislature and it
cannot be questioned on the ground of delay. Even
otherwise, in the decision relied on by Mr.
Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel in the case of
Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and
another reported in 1967 AIR 1910 it was held that
government is empowered to issue administrative
instructions and such instructions will have a
binding force. It was also held that government
cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by
administrative instructions, but if the rules are
silent on any particular point Government can fill
up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue
administrative instructions not inconsistent with the
rules already framed. Therefore, it is evident that
while bringing in an amendment, the only
requirement is that such amendment should not be
inconsistent with any other law for the time being in
force or in any manner repugnant to the existing
rules. In the present case, the amendment brought
to the Special Rules to the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service Rules to the effect that
preference can be given to seniority to the members
in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service by
placing them above the direct recruits selected from
the open market in the same year. Such an
amendment brought to Rule 25 (a) in our opinion is
not repugnant or inconsistent with any other laws
time being in force. Further, the Government, in
their wisdom, have thought it fit to give preference
to the in-service candidates who have already put in
five years of experience prior to their recruitment to


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 21 of 41


the post of Sub-Inspector. Above all, the
Government thought it fit that those in-service
candidates are already aged when compared to the
directly recruited candidates and therefore, if they
are given preference in fixation of seniority, they
could get the promotional prospects before their
retirement, otherwise they could not. In such view of
the matter, we are of the view that the amendments
brought to Rule 24 (e) of the Special Rules for Tamil
Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service is proper
and we do not see any reason to interfere with the
same.
33. In the light of the above, we dispose of these writ
petitions/writ appeal with the following
observation:-
(i) The directly recruited 500 candidates are
ordered to be placed first in the seniority list as has
been directed by the Division Bench of this Court in
the Judgment dated 11.03.2015 passed in WA Nos.
1599 and 1600 of 2014 and WP No. 2570 of 2015,
which was also affirmed by the Honourable
Supreme Court in SLP Civil No. 15710 to 15712
of2015 dated 09.02.2017.
(ii) The 267 in-service candidates are
ordered to be placed next in the seniority list below
the 500 directly recruited candidates mentioned in
clause (i) above
(iii) The 600 directly recruited candidates are
ordered to be placed below the 267 in-service
candidates mentioned in clause (ii) above in the
order of seniority
(iv) W.A. No. 484 of 2018 stands dismissed by
confirming the order dated 27.06.2017 passed by
the learned single Judge in WP No. 4355 of 2017
(v) The official respondents are directed to
prepare the seniority list as directed above and


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 22 of 41


proceed further in accordance with law. Such an
exercise is directed to be concluded within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.”
8. The High Court has assigned a reasoning for granting
seniority to in-service candidates who have taken part in the
examination meant for direct recruitment under the 20% quota by
holding that in-service candidates have to be given preference,
especially as they are experienced people in the Department and
had learnt the nuances in the Police department.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has
vehemently argued before this Court that under the 1955 Rules,
there are already three modes of recruitment, which are (i) by
transfer to the services; (ii) by promotion; and (iii) by direct
recruitment. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far as
direct recruitment is concerned, the seniority of all direct
recruitees has to be fixed based upon the marks obtained by them
in the qualifying examination and preferential treatment cannot
be given to candidates who are in-service candidates. He has
further argued before this Court that once the recruitment is from
the open market i.e. direct recruitment, merely because a person
has worked in the Department earlier, such person cannot steal a
march over direct recruitees even though he is lower in merit.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 23 of 41


Hence, the amendment brought vide G.O. dated 10.06.2009 and
G.O. dated 21.11.2017 amending Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules
are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and deserves to be struck down by this Court.
10. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued before this
Court that until the year 1995, the Head Constables serving the
Department were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspectors under
the promotion quota only and there was no such quota prescribed
for them to participate in the direct recruitment process.
However, as there was stagnation in the cadre of constables, the
Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to provide
reservation to the persons from constabulary services to
participate in the direct recruitment also to the extent of 20% of
the vacancies. He has contended that the concession of granting
participation in 20% of the vacancies reserved for direct
recruitment is itself bad in law, however, the direct recruitees
under the 80% quota are not aggrieved by the same. The only
grievance is that the seniority has to be maintained as per the
marks obtained in the examination, through which persons have
been selected to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police.
11. Learned Senior Counsel has further contended that High
Court has failed to consider the statutory rules governing the
fixation of inter-se seniority and the same could not have been


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 24 of 41


given effect to, by an executive order or circular, as has been done
by the State Government from time to time. Learned Senior
Counsel has further argued before this Court that the amendment
which was brought in force vide G.O. dated 21.11.2017 which
subsequently amended the 1955 Rules could not have been given
effect to from 1995 and by no stretch of imagination a person
lower in merit can be placed over and above a person who
secured more marks and who is higher in merit. Learned Senior
Counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the entire
exercise on part of the State Government is nothing but
appeasement of in-service candidates contrary to the settled
principles of law, which provides for grant of seniority based
upon the merit list prepared on the basis of process of recruitment
conducted by the recruiting agency. In the present case, a large
number of examinations were involved and all the examinations
were conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board and the merit list prepared on the basis of the examination
is a sacrosanct list and the same has to be given effect to.
12. On the other hand, a detailed and exhaustive counter
affidavit has been filed by the State Government and it has been
stated that as per G.O.(Ms.) No. 1054 dated 13.07.1995, the
government has earmarked 20% of the vacancies in the section
for direct recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police by allowing in-
service candidates who otherwise satisfy the other eligibility


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 25 of 41


criteria for selection and the said G.O. provides for grant of
seniority to them over the remaining 80% Sub-Inspectors
selected from the open market. It has been contended that in the
absence of statutory rules, the Government is empowered to issue
administrative instructions which have a binding force even in
the absence of a notification in the official Gazette and the
Government is entitled to bring an amendment at any point of
time. It has been further contended that by virtue of Executive
Instructions dated 13.07.1995, the process of recruitment was
adhered to by appointing large number of candidates and the in-
service candidates were appointed prior to the direct recruits
appointed from the open market and, therefore, the in-service
candidates have to be given seniority over the candidates
appointed through the process of selection meant for persons
from open market. Respondents have further stated that large
number of Sub-Inspectors who are in-service candidates have
received further promotions and at this juncture, if seniority list
is recasted, it will result in great injustice as some of them will
have to be reverted and the Appellants will have to be given
promotion based upon fresh gradation list on the basis of their
performance in the examination conducted for the post in
question. Respondents have also given reference to the litigation
which took place in the past and have prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 26 of 41


13. The departmental candidates have also filed a reply in the
matter and their contention is that the plea raised by the
appellants before this Court that executive instructions cannot
over-ride the statutory rules, does not have legs to stand as
amendment has been carried out in the recruitment rules also. It
has been vehemently argued that the recruitment rules provide
for placing the candidates selected through open market below
the departmental candidates right from 1995 and as the
recruitment rules were not amended, the Government after
realizing its mistake have issued a notification dated 21.11.2017
and has rightly given retrospective effect i.e. with effect from
1995. The Respondents have further stated that the question of
quashing the amendment under the 1955 Rules does not arise as
it will result in unsettling the applecart and will also lead to
reversion of large number of in-service candidates. The
Respondents have further contended that the State Government
in its wisdom thought it fit to give preference to the in-service
candidates who have already put in five years’ service prior to the
recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector under the 20% quota out
of 100% earmarked for direct recruitment and the same was done
as in-service candidates were having experience, they are aged
and in order to provide channel of promotion to them before their
retirement. The Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the
appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 27 of 41


upon a judgment delivered in the case of State of Himachal
Pradesh and Others Vs. Raj Kumar and Others 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 680 and it has been argued that based upon aforesaid
judgment, the question of granting seniority to the appellants
does not arise.
14. We have learned Senior Counsel for all the parties at length
appearing on respective sides and have carefully gone through
the record and the case laws cited by all the learned counsel for
the parties.
15. The dispute involved in the present case is fixation of inter
se seniority in respect of direct recruitment which includes some
in-service candidates also recruited under the direct recruitment
quota. The 1955 Rules provide for recruitment to the post of Sub-
Inspectors of Police by way of direct recruitment and by way of
promotion. Rule 3 quoted earlier provides for two sources of
recruitment. The State Government in exercise of powers
conferred under proviso 2 to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India has framed recruitment rules for appointment to the post of
Sub-Inspectors of Police and as already stated earlier, the
recruitment is made by direct recruitment and by promotion from
the eligible candidates already serving the Department. The State
Government, keeping in view of the representations from large
number of constables and other allied categoric police personnels


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 28 of 41


who were not able to make a mark to the post of Sub-Inspectors
of Police under the promotion quota, took a policy decision to
provide some reservation to the serving Head Constables in the
Police Department under the Direct Recruitment quota and a
G.O. (Ms.) No. 1054 dated 13.07.1995 was issued reserving 20%
of the vacancies under the direct recruitment to be filled up only
from constabulary services. Thus, in short, under the direct
recruitment quota, constables fulfilling the requisite criteria were
permitted to apply and to compete with open market candidates.
The G.O. dated 13.07.1995 was never published in the official
Gazette nor the recruitment rules were amended; however, the
recruitment did take place by granting 20% vacancies under the
direct recruitment quota to the in-service candidates. The State
Government thereafter issued another G.O. (Ms.) No. 1627 dated
24.10.1996 again providing 20% of the vacancies to in-service
candidates under the direct recruitment quota; however, the G.O.
dated 24.10.1996 was also not published in the official Gazette
nor the recruitment rules were amended. The State Government,
in spite of the fact that recruitment rules were not amended, again
appointed large number of candidates under the 20% quota, to
the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and after realizing its mistake
that the rules have not been amended, issued another G.O. Ms.
No. 4651 dated 10.06.2009 proposing to amend the Rules in
order to grant seniority to in-service candidates recruited under


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 29 of 41


the direct recruitment quota. The G.O. dated 10.06.2009 was
again not published in the official Gazette nor the rules were
amended and seniority was given to the in-service candidates
over and above the directly recruited candidates appointed
through the open market.
16. The State Government finally realizing its mistake issued
G.O. Ms. No. 868 dated 21.11.2017 which is the subject matter
of the present appeals reserving 20% of the vacancies for serving
police personnel and 80% vacancies for open market candidates
for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and also for providing
seniority to the in-service candidates en bloc over and above the
candidates appointed to the service by way of direct recruitment
under 80% of the vacancies. The State Government for the first
time published the G.O. dated 21.11.2017 in the official Gazette
and also amended the recruitment rules. The State Government
not only granted en bloc seniority to the 20% in-service
candidates who were appointed under the direct recruitment
quota over and above the open candidates appointed to service
through open market but the rule was given effect to with
retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 13.07.1995.
17. Various writ petitions were preferred before the High
Court of Madras and the High Court of Madras by way of
common order has upheld the G.O. dated 21.11.2017.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 30 of 41


18. The facts of the case also reveal that the State Government
has not applied the seniority rule uniformly right from the year
1995 inasmuch as in some of the batches, seniority has been
given to in-service candidates appointed under the 20% quota and
in some of the batches, seniority has also not been given.
However, in the case of R.Ranjith Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors., Writ Petition No. 25263 of 2009 which is the
lead matter, the State Government has granted seniority to
departmental candidates who were recruited under the 20% quota
over and above the directly recruited candidates appointed from
the open market and a common judgment has been passed by the
High Court upholding the G.O. dated 21.11.2017 and the
amendment under the recruitment rules meaning thereby in
respect of 100% direct recruitments to the post of Sub-Inspector
of Police, persons who are in-service candidates and who have
been given liberty to compete under the direct requirement quota
(20%) were placed over and above persons recruited through
open market.
19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has
demonstrated before this Court that the Appellant R.Ranjith
Singh has secured 79.10 marks and he was the first rank holder
and one Santhakumari who was a departmental candidate has
secured 69.27 marks; however, Santhakumari has been placed
over and above the persons who have obtained higher marks and


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 31 of 41


in fact all the departmental candidates have obtained less marks
than the open category candidates under the direct requirement
quota and have been placed over and above the persons who have
obtained more marks only because they are the in-service
candidates. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an
action on the part of the Respondent State is against the settled
canons of law. In respect of fixation of seniority of direct
recruitments, the unamended rule i.e Rule 25 was very clear
which provided for fixation of seniority with reference to the rank
assigned by the appointing authority in the list of selected
candidates. It is unfortunate that the State Government has
amended Rule 25 by G.O. dated 21.11.2017 by giving it
retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 13.07.1995. The State
Government has certainly issued various executive directions
from time to time for appointment under the direct recruitment
quota providing reservation to in-service candidates to the extent
of 20%; however, the rules were never amended till 21.11.2017.
It is a well settled proposition of law that executive instructions
cannot supplant the statutory rules. They can supplement/clarify
the statutory rules. In the present case, the executive instructions
issued from time to time have in fact supplanted the statutory
rules and such a process is unheard of in the field of service
jurisprudence.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 32 of 41


20. This Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and
Another Vs. M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills 1992 Supp (1)
Supreme Court Cases 150 has held that executive instructions can
supplement a Statute or cover areas which the Statute does not
extend. They cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or
whittle down their effect. In the present case, the G.O. dated
13.07.1995, G.O. dated 24.10.1996 and G.O. dated 10.06.2009
are executive instructions and based upon the executive
instructions, the statutory provisions as contained under the
statutory rules could not have been made applicable as has been
done in the present case.
21. This Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh and Others Vs.
The State of Uttarakhand and Others 2023 INSC 1024 has held
as under:
“34. It can thus be seen that it is a trite law that
the Government cannot amend or supersede
statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if
the rules are silent on any particular point, it can
fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue
instructions not inconsistent with the rules already
framed. It is a settled proposition of law that an
authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/
executive instructions in contravention of the
statutory rules. However, instructions can be issued
only to supplement the statutory rules but not to
supplant it.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 33 of 41


This Court has again held in the aforesaid case that the
Government cannot issue executive instructions in contravention
of the statutory rules.
22. The State Government without amending the recruitment
rules right from 1995 continued with the appointing process
under the direct recruitment category by appointing in-service
candidates and in the considered opinion of this Court, such a
recourse was not available to the State Government without
amending the recruitment rules. However, in light of the fact that
the persons have been promoted in 1995 and thereafter also, this
Court is not touching their promotion orders. The State
Government without amending recruitment rules till 2017
continued to appoint Sub-Inspector of Police from Head
Constables serving the police department and all such
recruitments were made without amending the recruitment rules.
The recruitment rules were amended only in the year 2017. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the amendment to the
recruitment rules in the year 2017 to the extent it provides for
20% reservation under the direct recruitment category to the in-
service candidates, does not warrant any interference. However,
the amendment brought vide G.O. dated 21.11.2017 amending
Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules, which provides for grant of
seniority to all in-service candidates over and above candidates
recruited from the open market is certainly violative of Articles


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 34 of 41


14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be
struck down by this Court.
23. The State Government after realizing its mistake has gone
to the extent of giving retrospective effect in the matter of
seniority meaning thereby giving a preferential treatment to the
in-service candidates who are less meritorious and who have
already been granted a concession by permitting them to appear
under the 20% quota earmarked for them. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the action of the State Government in
amending the recruitment rules with retrospective effect is
certainly violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. A statute which takes away the right of an individual
with retrospective effect deserves to be set aside by this Court.
24. The judgment relied upon by the respondent in the case of
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Raj Kumar and
Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680 is distinguishable on facts and
does not help the respondents in any manner.
25. This Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others
Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Others (2020)
19 Supreme Court Cases 604 , was dealing with the seniority issue
of District Judges promoted through Limited Competitive
Examination. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that inter se
placing of candidates selected through Limited Competitive


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 35 of 41


Examination has to be based upon merit. Paras 48, 49 and 50 of
the aforesaid judgment read as under:
“48. While considering Question 40.4.(D), it is
relevant to notice the emphasis placed by this Court
in All India Judges Assn. (3) [All India Judges Assn.
(3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC
(L&S) 508] while directing that 25% of the posts in
the cadre of the District Judge be filled through
LCE. It was stated in para 27 that there should be
an incentive amongst relatively junior and other
officers to improve and to compete with each other
so as to excel and get accelerated promotion. In
para 28, the relevant direction again stressed that
25% quota for promotion through LCE be “strictly
on the basis of merit”.
49. Rule 31(2) of the 2010 Rules also uses the
expression “strictly on the basis of merit” while
dealing with posts to be filled in through LCE. The
merit is to be assessed in terms of the scheme laid
down in the relevant Schedule. After considering
various parameters stated in the said Schedule, the
successful candidates are selected on the basis of
merit. The list of successful candidates becomes the
basis for final selection subject to qualifying
parameters such as suitability, medical fitness, etc.
However, placing reliance on Rule 47(4), the
Committee in its Report dated 15-3-2019 held that
the inter se seniority of persons promoted to the
District Judge cadre in the same year ought to be
the same as it was in the posts held by them at the
time of promotion. If the list is to be drawn up
according to merit, it is possible that the last person
in the list of selectees may be the seniormost and
going by the Report of the Committee, if all the
selectees are promoted in the same year such last


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 36 of 41


person may as well be at the top of the list of
promotees through LCE. In that event, the seniority
shall become the governing criteria and the
excellence on part of a comparatively junior
candidate may recede in the background. Instead of
giving incentive to comparatively junior and other
officers, the entire examination process will stand
reduced to a mere qualifying examination rather
than a competitive examination affording
opportunity to meritorious candidates. The criteria
shall then become seniority subject to passing the
LCE. The direction issued in All India Judges Assn.
(3) [All India Judges Assn. (3) v. Union of India,
(2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 508] to afford
an incentive to meritorious candidates regardless of
their seniority would not thus be carried out. The
general principle appearing in Rule 47(4) must,
therefore, give way to the special dispensation in
Rule 31(2) of the 2010 Rules.
50. In our view, the High Court in its Report dated
15-3-2019 completely failed to appreciate the true
character of LCE and reservation of certain quota
for that category. We, therefore, accept the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the
petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 498 of 2018
and Diary No. 13252 of 2019 and while answering
Question 40.4.(D) declare that the inter se
placement of the candidates selected through LCE
must be based on merit and not on the basis of the
seniority in the erstwhile cadre. The said writ
petitions are allowed to that extent.”
In the aforesaid case, there was a dispute in respect of inter-se
seniority of persons who were appointed to the services under the
Limited Departmental Examination. The High Court granted


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 37 of 41


seniority based upon their past services; however, this Court in
the aforesaid cases also held that once an appointment to service
is made based upon a competitive examination, the seniority has
to be maintained on the basis of performance in the examination
and not by taking into account the past service alone.
26. Again, this Court in the case of Prem Narayan Singh and
Others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 649 while dealing with promotions based upon
Limited Competitive Examination has held that the seniority has
to be based upon the merit and not on the basis of seniority in the
feeder cadre.
27. In the present case, the direct recruitment has been done to
80% of the vacancies through candidates from open market and
20% of the vacancies under the direct requirement quota from in-
service candidates and pre-amended Rule 25 provides for
fixation of seniority with reference to the rank assigned by the
appointing authority in the select list meaning thereby only on the
basis of marks obtained by each and every individual candidate.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that all
seniority list(s) right from 1995 deserve to be re-casted by
assigning proper seniority to the candidates who have been
appointed from the open market as well as from in-service
candidates solely on the basis of ranks assigned to the selected


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 38 of 41


candidates by the appointing authority on the basis of marks
obtained by them in the examination on the basis of which they
have been selected and appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police. There is no other process which can be followed in the
present case.
28. Resultantly, the GO dated 21.11.2017 which grants
seniority to the departmental candidates over and above the
candidates who have been recruited from open market is hereby
quashed and amendment to Rule 25 sub rule (a) also is hereby
struck down being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, meaning thereby, the Respondents shall
issue a fresh gradation list solely on the basis of marks obtained
by candidates in the examination on the basis of which they have
been recruited to the services. The Appeals stand disposed of
with the following directions:
a) The respondents shall recast all gradation list issued from
time to time in respect of direct recruitment which includes
20% in-service candidates recruited directly to the post of
Sub-Inspector of Police by granting seniority on the basis
of marks obtained in the qualifying examination/selection
process. The exercise of recasting and issuance of revised
gradation list be positively concluded within a period of 60
days from today.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 39 of 41


b) The respondent State shall not revert any officer who has
been given further promotion on the basis of the seniority
list already issued by the Department from 1995; however,
the respondent State shall not issue any promotion order in
respect of departmental candidates till the revised seniority
list is issued as aforesaid.
c) That, after issuance of revised seniority list, the State
Government shall consider the cases of all departmental
candidates for promotion to the next higher post keeping
in view the promotions granted to the juniors (based upon
the revised seniority list) and the exercise of granting
promotions be concluded in respect of the direct recruitees
(80%) quota within a period of two months from the date
of issuance of revised seniority list.
d) The direct recruits, in case they are found fit for promotion
to the next higher post will be entitled for notional
promotion, fixation of seniority and all other consequential
benefits except back wages on grant of promotion to the
next higher post.
e) The State Government shall hereinafter conduct one
common examination for 100% direct recruitment for
appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police which
includes 80% from open market and 20% from in-service
candidates and their seniority shall be assigned based upon


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 40 of 41


the marks obtained by individual candidates/rank assigned
by appointing authority in the list of selected candidates.
29. With the aforesaid, the appeals stand disposed of. No
orders as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.


……………………………………J.
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]




……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

NEW DELHI
May 01, 2025.


SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 41 of 41