Regularly selected direct recruits rank senior to compassionate and ad hoc appointees despite their earlier appointments.

The dispute concerned inter se seniority among three groups in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service: Direct recruits selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) examination held in November 1983; Special appointees temporarily engaged under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 and later regularised; and Compassionate appointees appointed under Rule 48 of those Rules.

The Special appointees challenged the rule placing them below the 1983 Direct recruits, while the Direct recruits challenged the High Court’s decision to place Compassionate appointees above them based on appointment dates.

The High Court had held that the Direct recruits ranked above the Special appointees, but that seniority between Direct recruits and Compassionate appointees depended on their respective appointment dates.

The connected appeals and transferred cases challenged different parts of that ruling.

1. Whether Special appointees temporarily appointed under Rule 10(a)(i), and later regularised, could claim seniority over the 1983 Direct recruits from their initial temporary appointment dates.

2. Whether Compassionate appointees could rank above the 1983 Direct recruits based on their dates of appointment and the Government Order dated 14 September 1984.

3. What criterion should determine inter se seniority between the Compassionate appointees and Special appointees.

The Court applied Rules 2(1), 6, 10(a)(i), 35(a) and 35(aa), and 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955.

Rule 10(a)(i) authorises temporary appointments in specified circumstances; such service does not, absent a governing rule, confer seniority from the date of temporary appointment.

Rules 35(a) and 35(aa) provide for seniority by rank in the approved-candidate list or, where recruitment is by more than one method, by the date of appointment.

The Court treated the Special Absorption Rules, 1987—particularly Clause 10, which placed Special appointees below the 1983 TNPSC recruits irrespective of appointment dates—as governing their seniority.

It also held that an executive order under Article 162 may supplement, but cannot operate against, statutory rules; compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary requirements of Articles 14 and 16 and does not place appointees on par with regularly selected Direct recruits for seniority purposes.

Relying on State of Tamil Nadu v. E. Paripoornam, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 420, and M.P. Palanisamy v. A. Krishnan, (2009) 6 SCC 428, the Court reaffirmed that temporary Rule 10(a)(i) service does not found a claim to cadre seniority before regularisation.

It also applied Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715: a regular Direct recruit’s seniority is not postponed until confirmation, whereas a temporary or ad hoc appointee cannot claim seniority from an appointment made outside the rules.

The Special appointees entered service temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i) and were later regularised under the Special Absorption Rules.

Clause 10 expressly placed them below the 1983 TNPSC recruits, and the Court upheld that arrangement as a lawful seniority rule that recognised the Direct recruits’ regular selection and the State’s explanation for their delayed appointments.

The Compassionate appointees’ appointments under Rule 48 and the 1984 Government Order did not entitle them to rank above the Direct recruits: the Order could not displace the applicable service rules, and compassionate appointment was not equivalent to regular competitive selection for seniority purposes.

For seniority between Compassionate and Special appointees, the Court considered the date of regularisation the appropriate criterion in the circumstances.

Seniority between the Special and Compassionate appointees is to be determined by their respective dates of regularisation.

Transferred Cases Nos. 50–52 of 2013 were dismissed; Civil Appeals Nos. 8756 and 8757 of 2013 were disposed of with the direction concerning inter se seniority between Special and Compassionate appointees; Civil Appeal No. 8755 of 2013 was allowed to the extent that the Compassionate appointees could not rank above the 1983 Direct recruits.

The High Court’s judgment was modified accordingly, with no order as to costs.