NALINI NATARAJAN vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 23.09.2026
Pronounced on 16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP Nos. 11452 and 11330 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010734122024}
and
WMP Nos.12560 and 12419 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.37722 and 37719 of
2025
W.P.No.11452 of 2024
1. Nalini Natarajan
2. R.Geetha
3. P.Vijayakumar
4. P.Thangam Bhavani
5. G.Kalalakshmi
6. S.Prakash
7. R.Velusamy
8. M.Vairamuthu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai- 09.
2. The Director
Forensic Sciences Department,
Mylapore, Chennai-04.
3. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Park Town, TNPSC Road.
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai-03.
__________
Page1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the revised seniority list issued by the
2nd respondent in Proc. No.A1/ 34252/ 2022 dated 05.05.2022 as null and
void in so far as the petitioner, selected and appointed as Scientific Assistant
Grade II (Re-designated as Junior Scientific Officer) through Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission 1996- 1998 prior to 10.03.2003, is concerned
based on the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Contempt
Petition (C) Diary No.6415 of 2021 in SLP (C) No.2886 of 2016 dated
18.04.2023, in consideration of representation / objection submitted by the
petitioners dated 28.04.2023, 27.04.2023, 26.04.2023, 08.08.2022,
28.04.2023, 26.04.2023 and 10.08.2022.
WP No. 11330 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010734112024}
G.Gnanasambandan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director
Forensic Sciences Department,
Mylapore Chennai 04.
3. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Park Town, TNPSC Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai 03.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the revised seniority list issued by the
2nd respondent in Proc. No. A1/ 34252/ 2022 dated 5.05.2022 as null and void
in so far as the petitioner, selected and appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II
(Re-designated as Junior Scientific Officer) through Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission 1999- 2000 prior to 10.03.2003 is concerned based on the orders of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Contempt Petition (C) Diary No.
6415 of 2021 in SLP (C) No. 2886 of 2016 dated 18.04.2023 in consideration of
representation/objection submitted by the petitioner dated 05.08.2022,
24.04.2023, 01.09.2023 and 03.11.2023.
For Petitioner(s):
in both W.Ps
Mr.G.Sankaran,
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent(s):
in both W.Ps
Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)
Mr.R.Bharanidharan,
Standing Counsel (for R3)
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders
dated 05.05.2022 passed by the second respondent.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petitions
are that the petitioners were directly recruited through the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission (TNPSC), pursuant to the notifications dated 22.11.1996
and 25.06.1999. The petitioners joined the service as Scientific Assistants in
__________
Page3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
1996-1998 and 1999-2000, and their initial seniority was fixed based on
communal roster points. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted to the post
of Scientific Assistant Grade-I and thereafter to the post of Assistant Director
between 2016 and 2018. In the meanwhile, certain third parties filed a contempt
petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking State-wide implementation
of merit-based seniority pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Others , reported in (2003) 5 SCC
604. Based on the contempt petition, the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission issued a communication in Letter No.431/OTD-C1/2022, dated
22.07.2024, revising the seniority of the petitioners and other direct recruits on
the basis of merit. Such revision resulted in a substantial and prejudicial
alteration of the petitioners' seniority. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ
Petitions have been filed
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would
specifically submit that, by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 18.04.2023 in Cont.P.No.6415 of 2021 in SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016, a
specific cut-off date, namely, 10.03.2003, being the date of the judgment in
Bimlesh Tanwar’ case (cited supra), was fixed for determining the applicability
__________
Page4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
of merit-based seniority. Accordingly, the seniority of candidates whose
selection process was initiated on or after 10.03.2003 could be revised on the
basis of merit. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that any
seniority list finalised prior to 10.03.2003 ought to remain frozen and should not
be disturbed. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, notwithstanding the
aforesaid cut-off date, the respondent authorities revised the seniority of the
petitioners, whose selection process had commenced as early as in 1996, nearly
seven years prior to the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar (cited supra). Hence, the
learned Senior Counsel prayed to allow these Writ Petitions.
5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third
respondent would contend that the third respondent, being the recruiting agency,
justified the revision of seniority in view of the orders dated 18.04.2023 and
09.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary
No.6415 of 2021 in SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016. He would further submit that,
pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated
18.04.2023 and the subsequent order dated 09.05.2024, the third respondent
issued instructions to the first and second respondents to withdraw the refixed
merit based by restoring the original roster based seniority, vide letter dated
10.07.2024. The said communication was also conveyed to the second
respondent on 22.07.2024. In the meanwhile, before the second respondent
could restore the original seniority, the third respondent decided to withdraw its
__________
Page5 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
letter dated 22.07.2024, pursuant to the resolution passed in its meeting held on
06.05.2025, based upon the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General,
6. In addition to the above submission, the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would contend that, even
as per the order dated 09.05.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the seniority
lists published prior to 10.03.2003 were directed to remain frozen. In the present
case, pursuant to the instructions issued by the third respondent, namely, the
TNPSC, the second respondent revised the seniority on the basis of merit.
Subsequently, though the third respondent instructed the first and second
respondents to withdraw the merit-based seniority list and restore the original
seniority, the said communication was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, the
first and second respondents have maintained the seniority based on the
communal roster, in accordance with the instructions of the TNPSC and the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which directed the seniority lists
finalised prior to 10.03.2003 to remain frozen. Hence, the learned Special
Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petitions.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
8. The dates and events are not in dispute. The following facts are
admitted: (1) The recruitment of the petitioners took place pursuant to the
__________
Page6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
notifications issued by the TNPSC on 22.11.1996 and 25.06.1999. (2) It is not
in dispute that the second respondent revised the seniority on the basis of merit,
vide proceedings dated 05.05.2022. (3) It is also not in dispute that the third
respondent initially issued instructions to withdraw the merit-based seniority list
and restore the original seniority list prepared on the basis of the communal
roster. (4) Subsequently, the said instructions were withdrawn based on the
opinion of the learned Advocate General.
9. Now, the respondents contend that, even as per the order dated
09.05.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the seniority lists already finalised
prior to 10.03.2003 are required to remain frozen. According to the respondents,
since the seniority of the petitioners had already been revised on the basis of
merit, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.04.2023, there
was no occasion to revise the same in view of the direction dated 09.05.2024
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021
in SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016.
10. The point that arises for consideration, is whether the Hon'ble
Supreme Court intended to permit the revision of seniority in respect of
recruitment processes initiated prior to 10.03.2003, qua date of the judgment in
Bimlesh Tanwar (cited supra). In this regard, the following aspects are relevant.
In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Senthur v. T.N. Public
__________
Page7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
Service Commission , reported in (2022) 17 SCC 568, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the principles governing the determination of seniority. For
ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph 24 of the
said judgment hereunder:-
“24. This Court, while dismissing the SLPs against the first
judgment, has clearly held that after the emergence of the
judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar [Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 737] , the
fundamental principle governing the determination of seniority
was that, it should be based on merit list of selection and that
the list made on the basis of roster point, would not be
permissible in law. It could thus be seen that while dismissing
the SLPs, this Court has reiterated the legal position as laid
down in Bimlesh Tanwar [Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 737] to the
effect that while determining seniority, what is relevant is the
inter se merit in the selection list and not the roster point.”
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, as per the judgment in
Bimlesh Tanwar (cited supra), the fundamental principle governing the
determination of seniority should be the merit. Subsequently, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued directions for revising seniority on the basis of merit.
Since the TNPSC and the Government did not comply with the directions,
__________
Page8 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
another contempt petition was filed in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021 in
SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016 . In the said contempt proceedings, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, by order dated 18.04.2023, observed as follows:-
“12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
once a law was laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
Court consisting of nine Judges in the case of Indira Sawhney v.
Union of India - 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217 there could not have
been reservations in promotions and the appointments ought to
have been on the basis of seniority as determined by the TNPSC
according to merit. It is further submitted that in any case,
after the judgment of this Court was delivered on 10th March,
2003, the respondent State could not have given the seniority
on the basis of roster points. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that if individuals are asked to agitate their
individual grievances, it would be in contravention of the view
taken by the Madras High Court in the first judgment which is
affirmed by this Court.
14. Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned AAG, on the contrary,
submitted that by efflux of time, much water has flown. He
submitted that the rights have been accrued between the
parties for decades and upsetting the same at this stage would
have serious repercussions. In the alternative, Shri Tiwari
submitted that it will be appropriate that this Court determines
the cut off date and that cut off date should be the first
judgment of the Madras High Court. He further submitted that
for carrying out the exercise, this Court should appoint a
Committee inasmuch as 10.76 lakh cases will have to be
__________
Page9 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
considered. It is submitted that the State is not equipped with
the machinery to complete such a herculean task.
17. We, t herefore, though are not inclined to disturb the
seniority lists which are finalized prior to 10th 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 finalized
after 10th 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.
21. We therefore, direct the State Government to complete
the exercise of finalizing the seniority lists of selection
th
processes conducted after 10 March, 2003 on the basis of the
principle that the seniority list shall be reckoned only on the
basis of the merit as determined by the TNPSC in the selection
process.
22. It is further made clear that if any list is finalized in
case of selections held prior to 2003 giving benefit to the
persons selected as per their seniority or as per merit, the same
shall also not to be disturbed.”
12. From the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that
the Court took cognisance of the repercussions that would arise from revising
the seniority of appointees across various departments. Accordingly, the relief
was restricted to cases where the selection process had been conducted on or
after 10.03.2003. While issuing such directions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
__________
Page10 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
paragraph 17, specifically observed that it was not inclined to disturb the
seniority lists finalised prior to 10.03.2003.
13. In the case on hand, the seniority of the petitioners was finalised
following their recruitment in 1999. The said position was reiterated in
paragraph 22 of the aforesaid order, wherein it was observed that, if merit-based
seniority had already been granted to any candidates even prior to 2003, the
same was to be continued. However, in the present case, the initial seniority of
the petitioners and the other recruits in the department of the second respondent
was admittedly fixed on the basis of the communal roster.
14. In the subsequent order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary No.6415 of 2021, paragraph 5 reads as
follows:-
“5. We do not find that any clarification of the order
passed by this Court is required. The order is very clear that all
such seniority lists which have been published prior to
10.03.2003 shall stand frozen. It is only the seniority lists
published after 10.03.2003 that will have to be revisited in
accordance with the judgment of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v.
State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604.”
__________
Page11 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
15. A careful reading of the above observation makes it abundantly clear
that, any seniority list finalised prior to 10.03.2003 is required to remain frozen.
In the present case, the third respondent's communication resulted in the
revision of seniority on the basis of merit, even though their selection process
had commenced prior to the aforesaid cut-off date [10.03.2003]. The
respondents have thereafter relied upon the expression "shall stand frozen"
found in the above order, to contend that the revised merit-based seniority of the
year 2022 should not be disturbed. However, such an interpretation does not
appear to be in consistent with the intention underlying the directions issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in it’s order dated 18.04.2023 & 09.05.2024,
particularly when the seniority of the petitioners had originally been finalised
prior to 10.03.2003.
16. The next point for consideration is whether the letter issued by the
third respondent has any binding effect or whether the third respondent can
issue instructions contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is
well-settled principle of law that an administrative authority cannot issue
instructions contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In
the present case, the third respondent, without assigning any independent
reasons and merely relying upon the opinion of the learned Advocate General,
issued instructions to the department, leaving the affected individuals to
__________
Page12 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
challenge the same. Though the third respondent initially instructed the first and
second respondents to restore the original seniority based on the communal
roster, the subsequent withdrawal of those instructions, as discussed
hereinabove appears to be contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
17. From the above discussion, it is evident that the seniority fixed in
respect of a selection process initiated prior to 10.03.2003 ought not to have
been disturbed and was required to remain frozen. However, it is made clear
that, where merit-based seniority had already been granted to candidates prior to
10.03.2003, such seniority shall also not be disturbed. Therefore, this Court is of
the firm view that the revision of seniority made by the second respondent on
05.05.2022 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
18. Though the other individuals whose rights may be affected have not
been impleaded in the present Writ Petitions, the issue involved herein is not
merely individualistic in nature. Having regard to the fact that the present
proceedings concern the implementation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this Court is of the firm view that the non-impleadment of the
other individuals would not, by itself, preclude this Court from considering the
legality of the impugned proceedings.
__________
Page13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that
the impugned proceedings dated 05.05.2022 are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside, and the respondents are
directed to restore the original seniority of the petitioners as it stood prior to the
issuance of the impugned seniority list. The aforesaid conclusion is also
supported by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)
Nos.2146 and 2147 of 2023 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.No.6548 of 2022.
20. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
__________
Page14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai- 09.
2. The Director
Forensic Sciences Department,
Mylapore, Chennai-04.
3. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Park Town, TNPSC Road.
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai-03.
__________
Page15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )

2026:MHC:4254
WP No. 11452 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
Pre-Delivery order in
WP Nos. 11452 and 11330 of 2024
16-10-2026
__________
Page16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:44 pm )