Selection or publication of a selection list does not confer any right to appointment or pay revision.

The State of Tamil Nadu filed intra-court appeals challenging three writ shop orders dated 21.12.2023, 20.12.2023, and 09.11.2023.

The respondents (original writ petitioners) sought pay benefits based on G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010.

They contended that since their selection process began or selection lists were published (e.g., 07.11.2008) prior to 01.06.2009, they should be treated as having been appointed before that date to avail higher pay scales.

The State contended the writ court erroneously interpreted G.O.Ms.No.340 and that the financial implication of the orders would exceed several thousand crores.

The Court applied Rule 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which define "appointed to service" as the date an individual first discharges duties or commences probation.

It relied on Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra, distinguishing "recruitment" (selection) from "appointment" (actual posting).

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Raghvir Singh Yadav, holding that selection does not confer a vested right to appointment.

The court cited S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand regarding the principle that pay fixation is a delicate administrative mechanism within the domain of the executive, not the courts.

The Court reasoned that G.O.Ms.No.340 was not a general Pay Commission order but a specific measure to rectify anomalies for contract employees appointed before 01.06.2009 who faced administrative delays.

Since the respondents were admittedly appointed only after 02.06.2009, they never drew pay in the pre-revised scales and thus fell outside the scope of said G.O.

The Court emphasized that mere presence on a selection list does not equate to an appointment.

The Bench noted that earlier contrary orders of the Court were not binding precedents because they failed to consider the specific scope of G.O.Ms.No.340 or the distinction regarding contract employees, and following them would cause "huge financial loss" to the State.

Applying the precedent set in W.A. No. 838 of 2026, the Court allowed the Writ Appeals and set aside the impugned orders dated 21.12.2023, 20.12.2023, and 09.11.2023. All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded.