Seniority fixed for pre-10 March 2003 selections cannot be disturbed by later merit-based revision.

In brief

The question

1. Whether seniority relating to selection processes initiated before 10.03.2003 could be revised under the Supreme Court’s directions concerning merit-based seniority.

The court held

The Court held that the 05.05.2022 revision was unsustainable because it disturbed the petitioners’ seniority fixed before 10.03.2003.

It also directed

It set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the respondents to restore the petitioners’ original seniority as it stood before that revision.

Both writ petitions were allowed; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioners were directly recruited as Scientific Assistants through TNPSC selections initiated in 1996 and 1999.

pp. 3–4

Their initial seniority was fixed by communal roster; they later challenged the second respondent’s proceedings dated 05.05.2022 revising seniority on merit.

pp. 3–4, 7

The revision followed Supreme Court directions in contempt proceedings concerning seniority principles, including orders dated 18.04.2023 and 09.05.2024.

pp. 5–7, 9–11

The respondents maintained that the revised list should stand, while the petitioners argued that seniority fixed before 10.03.2003 could not be disturbed.

pp. 5–7, 9–11

02Issues

i.1. Whether seniority relating to selection processes initiated before 10.03.2003 could be revised under the Supreme Court’s directions concerning merit-based seniority.

¶ 10–15

ii.2. Whether the second respondent’s revision dated 05.05.2022 was contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions and liable to be set aside.

¶ 16–19

03Law Applied

In Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604, seniority is generally to be determined by merit in the selection list, not by roster points; this principle was reiterated in V. Senthur v. T.N. Public Service Commission, (2022) 17 SCC 568.

¶ 10

However, the Supreme Court’s orders dated 18.04.2023 and 09.05.2024 in Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6415 of 2021 directed that seniority lists finalised before 10.03.2003 were not to be disturbed, while lists published after that date were to be revisited in accordance with Bimlesh Tanwar.

¶ 11, 14

An administrative authority cannot issue instructions contrary to Supreme Court directions.

¶ 16

04Reasoning

The Court treated the petitioners’ original roster-based seniority as having been fixed before 10.03.2003 and held that the Supreme Court’s directions protected that pre-cut-off position from disturbance.

¶ 12–15, 17

It rejected the respondents’ argument that the 2022 merit-based revision should itself be preserved, reasoning that this would be inconsistent with the directions to leave pre-10.03.2003 seniority lists undisturbed.

¶ 15–17

The TNPSC’s later withdrawal of its instruction to restore the original seniority did not justify retaining the 2022 revision.

¶ 15–17

The Court also held that non-impleadment of other affected individuals did not prevent adjudication because the petitions concerned implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions.

¶ 18