Seniority of temporary appointees regularized retrospectively cannot supersede direct recruits appointed before the date of such regularization.

The Appellants were appointed as Junior Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Registration Department on 06.03.2007 on a temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.

Their services were regularized on 20.07.2012 with retrospective effect from 15.03.2007.

They were subsequently appointed as Assistants by transfer on 06.01.2014.

The Respondents (Direct Recruits) were appointed directly to the post of Assistant on 23.11.2012 following a 2010 recruitment notification.

On 02.02.2018, the official respondents issued a revised seniority list placing the Appellants (promotees) above the Respondents (direct recruits) by accounting for administrative delays in the Appellants' probation and training.

The Respondents challenged this list, and the Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the seniority list. The matter was referred to a third member due to a split verdict in the Writ Appeals.

1. Whether the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees should be determined based on the date of temporary appointment or the date of regularization of service.

2. Whether administrative delays in completion of mandatory training (Bhavani Sagar) justify giving retrospective seniority to temporary appointees over subsequent regular direct recruits.

The Court applied Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, which dictates that seniority be reckoned from the date of appointment to the service.

The Supreme Court precedent in K. Madalaimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu established that an appointment made under Rule 10(a)(i) (temporary/stop-gap) does not constitute "appointment to service" until such service is regularized according to recruitment rules.

Section 3(r) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, regarding the definition of service entry.

The Court reasoned that the Appellants' initial entry in 2007 was purely temporary under Rule 10(a)(i) and did not grant them a place in the formal cadre until regularization.

Following the ratio in K. Madalaimuthu, the Court held that seniority in a cadre can only be counted from the date of regular appointment, not from a temporary stop-gap arrangement.

Although the government regularized the Appellants retrospectively, the Court noted that the Appellants were only appointed to the post of 'Assistant' on 06.01.2014, whereas the Respondents had already joined the 'Assistant' cadre on 18.12.2012.

Therefore, regardless of administrative delays in training or the retrospective regularization of their Junior Assistant status, the Respondents entered the specific cadre of "Assistant" earlier in time than the Appellants.

It held that the direct recruits (Respondents), having entered the service of Assistants in 2012, are senior to the promotees (Appellants) who entered the same cadre in 2014.

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeals, upheld the set-aside of the seniority list dated 02.02.2018, and directed the preparation of a fresh seniority list consistent with these findings.