A panel-year vacancy creates no right to retrospective seniority absent a specific rule.

The petitioner, appointed as an Office Assistant on 7 February 1995, claimed eligibility for appointment as Junior Assistant/Record Clerk under G.O.Ms.No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19 August 1998. The Government Order reserved 20% of vacancies in the posts of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and Bill Collector for eligible employees serving in non-provincialised posts in Town Panchayats through transfer of service.

The petitioner was ultimately appointed as Junior Assistant under G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 23 June 2011, against the panel year 2008–2009. However, his seniority was fixed from the date of his actual appointment rather than from the panel year. He contended that an available vacancy during 2008–2009 and the respondents’ delay in processing the appointment entitled him to retrospective/notional seniority from that panel year. The consequential rejection order issued by the Director of Town Panchayats on 24 May 2022 was also challenged.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective or notional seniority in the post of Junior Assistant from the panel year 2008–2009, despite having been appointed subsequently in 2011?

Whether the mere existence of vacancies during the 2008–2009 panel year created a vested right to appointment by transfer and consequential seniority from that year?

Whether the respondents’ obligation to prepare an annual panel under the applicable service rules required them to fill the vacancies during the same panel year?

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 19 August 1998, which provided for filling 20% of vacancies in the relevant posts through transfer of service from eligible non-provincialised employees; the Court held that the Government Order did not treat the appointment as a promotion and did not prescribe a right to seniority from the vacancy or panel year.

The Court relied on the principle that the mere existence of a vacancy does not compel the State to fill it, unless a statutory rule creates such a mandate.

It further applied Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, under which an annual panel may have to be prepared, but which does not require every vacancy existing in a panel year to be filled during that same year.

The Court followed A. Mariappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.No.32745 of 2007, decided on 20 August 2024, and A. Kanagamuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.A.No.524 of 2020, decided on 28 April 2023, which affirmed that preparation of an annual panel does not confer an enforceable right to appointment or retrospective seniority.

The Court distinguished between preparation of a panel and the actual filling of vacancies. G.O.Ms.No.150 contemplated appointment by transfer and required procedural steps, including preparation of the panel and approval by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission; it did not create an automatic promotional entitlement merely because a vacancy existed.

Since there was no rule requiring the respondents to fill vacancies in the same panel year, the petitioner could not claim that the 2008–2009 vacancy crystallised into an enforceable right to appointment or retrospective seniority. Although the delay in processing the appointment adversely affected the petitioner’s seniority, the absence of a specific rule authorising retrospective seniority prevented the Court from granting the relief as a matter of right.

The writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 23 June 2011 and the consequential order dated 24 May 2022 was dismissed. However, the first and second respondents were directed to frame appropriate rules to address the grievance of the petitioner and similarly situated employees within six months from receipt of the order. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.