Madras HC Rejects 1997 Scheduled Caste Scientists’ Seniority Bid: Backlog Appointments Did Not Override Higher Ranks in the Merit List

The petitioners, appointed as Environmental Scientists in 1997 against Scheduled Caste backlog vacancies, sought seniority above candidates appointed against regular vacancies and consequential promotion to Chief Scientific Officer.

The Board had revised the seniority list in 2013; the petitioners’ later representation was rejected on 5 June 2020, which they did not challenge.

They then challenged an order promoting the third respondent, contending that the rule requiring backlog vacancies to be filled first entitled them to preferential seniority.

The respondents disputed that interpretation and also raised delay and laches, non-joinder of affected candidates, and the petitioners’ failure to challenge the 2020 rejection.

The third proviso to Rule 22(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (TNSSS Rules), applicable at the time of the 1997 recruitment, prescribes the treatment and filling of unfilled reserved vacancies as backlog vacancies, but concerns reservation in appointment rather than seniority.

Rule 35(a) provides that seniority is determined by the rank obtained in the approved-candidates list, subject to the rule of reservation.

The Court read State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shobana, (2021) 4 SCC 686, as holding that the direction to fill backlog vacancies “first” does not displace merit or candidates’ rank.

It also considered Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and P. Madhu v. K. Nanthakumar, the latter directing reconsideration of seniority lists finalized after 10 March 2003 in accordance with Bimlesh Tanwar; the Court treated the petitioners’ 1997 recruitment as outside that direction.

The Court held that Rule 22(d)’s requirement to select candidates for backlog vacancies first governs the filling of vacancies and does not grant those candidates priority in seniority.

Seniority instead falls to be determined under Rule 35(a), by reference to rank and subject to reservation.

The Board’s records showed that seniority had been fixed by reference to communal rotation and merit; candidates at two positions had been accommodated favourably under the SC roster despite lower marks, and the petitioners did not dispute the marks recorded.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the seniority determination.

It further noted that affected candidates had not been joined and that the petitioners had not challenged the 2020 order rejecting their representation.

Finding no merit in the challenge and additional defects of non-joinder and failure to challenge the 2020 rejection, it dismissed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs.