Seniority lists first prepared after 10 March 2003 must follow merit, not communal roster.

Thiruguna was recruited as an Assistant Engineer through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and joined the Highways Department on 26 January 1998.

A seniority list of Assistant Engineers, stated to be effective as on 1 January 2004, was published for the first time on 29 April 2004 and had been prepared on the basis of the communal roster rather than merit.

Earlier, the selection process had been challenged in W.P.No.46868 of 2006 on the ground that candidates with lower marks had been placed above higher-scoring candidates. The writ petition was allowed, and the direction to determine seniority on merit was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Thiruguna sought revision of the seniority list through representations dated 31 July 2023, 14 March 2024 and 4 March 2025, relying on the Supreme Court’s order in Cont.P.(Civil) Diary No.6145 in S.L.P.(Civil) No.2886 of 2016.

The learned Single Judge directed the authorities to prepare the seniority list of Assistant Engineers selected through the TNPSC according to merit for the relevant year of selection. The State authorities and the TNPSC challenged that order in the present writ appeals.

Whether the seniority list first published on 29 April 2004 was required to be revised according to merit, notwithstanding that Thiruguna had been recruited and had joined service in 1998.

Whether the presence of Assistant Engineers appointed through different modes—including earlier appointments, recruitment by transfer, redesignation and compassionate appointment—made the direction to revise the TNPSC-recruited officers’ seniority according to merit impracticable or legally impermissible.

Whether the learned Single Judge’s mandamus directing preparation of the seniority list according to merit warranted appellate interference.

The Court applied the principle in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 605, that seniority must be determined according to merit and that seniority lists finalised after 10 March 2003 require reconsideration in accordance with that principle, while lists finalised before that date need not be reopened.

The Court treated the Supreme Court’s directions as binding under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution and held that the State authorities were constitutionally obliged to implement them in letter and spirit.

It also applied Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 1960, to place Assistant Engineers appointed through other sources in accordance with their dates of appointment in the relevant recruitment years.

The Court distinguished the decision in V. Kanimozhi v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, since that case concerned a seniority list finalised before 10 March 2003.

The Court found that the material date was not Thiruguna’s date of joining in 1998, but the date on which the departmental seniority list was actually finalised.

It was undisputed that the Highways Department prepared the Assistant Engineers’ seniority list for the first time only on 29 April 2004, well after the Supreme Court’s cut-off date of 10 March 2003.

Consequently, the list was governed by the rule in Bimlesh Tanwar and had to be prepared on the basis of merit rather than the communal roster.

The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the heterogeneous composition of the cadre made implementation impracticable.

It held that the direction concerned Assistant Engineers selected through the TNPSC, whose inter se seniority had to be fixed according to merit, while officers appointed through redesignation, recruitment by transfer or compassionate appointment could be placed according to their respective dates of appointment under Section 40(2).

The later decision relied upon by the appellants was inapplicable because its seniority list had already been finalised before the relevant Supreme Court cut-off date.

It affirmed the learned Single Judge’s mandamus directing the authorities to prepare the seniority list of TNPSC-selected Assistant Engineers according to merit for the relevant year of selection.

Both writ appeals were dismissed. The appellants were directed to comply with the Single Judge’s order within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.

The interim stay granted in C.M.P.(MD) No.11046 of 2026 was vacated, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and there was no order as to costs.