01Facts
The petitioner, a Leading Fireman in the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department, sought revision of his seniority from 2000, based on marks obtained in the 1999–2000 recruitment selection.
p. 1 · ¶ 1The authorities rejected his request by orders dated 6 February 2025 and 18 February 2026, which he challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.
p. 1 · ¶ 1The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 18 April 2023 concerning revision of seniority lists in Tamil Nadu.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 202Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his seniority revised from 2000 based on merit in the 1999–2000 selection.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2ii.2. Whether the impugned orders rejecting that request could stand in light of the Supreme Court’s directions on revision of seniority lists.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2–303Law Applied
The Supreme Court directed that seniority lists finalized after 10 March 2003 be revisited in accordance with the principle that seniority is determined by merit as assessed by the TNPSC in the selection process.
pp. 3–4 · reproduced Supreme Court order · ¶ 17It further directed that finalized lists for selections held before 2003, where seniority had been assigned either by roster or by merit, should not be disturbed.
pp. 3–4 · reproduced Supreme Court order · ¶ 21–22The order also referred to Bimlesh Tanwar and an earlier Madras High Court judgment as the basis for applying the merit principle to relevant lists.
p. 3 · reproduced Supreme Court order · ¶ 1704Reasoning
The petitioner’s request concerned seniority dating from 2000 and arose from a 1999–2000 selection.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2–3The Court considered the Supreme Court’s direction that finalized seniority lists relating to selections before 2003 should not be disturbed.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2–3It therefore declined to entertain a request to revise the petitioner’s seniority from 2000 and dismissed the challenge to the impugned orders.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2–305Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, declining to order revision of the petitioner’s seniority from 2000.
p. 4 · ¶ 3No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
p. 4 · ¶ 3Original Court PDF
SelvarajvsThe Secretary
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
