Transferred Armed Reserve Sub-Inspectors’ seniority must be fixed below Taluk Police Wing direct recruits under Rule 25(a).

The appellants and respondents were recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police through a common notification in 2010.

Based on marks and options exercised at the time of recruitment, candidates were posted to either the Taluk Police Wing (TPW) or the Armed Reserve Wing (ARW).

After serving for approximately 10 years in their respective wings with separate seniority lists, several Armed Reserve Sub-Inspectors (ARSIs) requested and were granted transfers to the TPW.

A dispute arose regarding their seniority in the TPW; the appellants (transferees) argued their seniority should be based on their original 2010 recruitment marks, while the contesting respondents (original TPW officers) argued that transferees must be placed below the existing TPW officers.

The Writ Court dismissed the appellants' plea on 19.11.2025, leading to this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the seniority of Sub-Inspectors transferred from the Armed Reserve Wing to the Taluk Police Wing should be determined by original recruitment marks or by their position below the existing recruits in the new wing.

2. Whether the ratio of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu regarding mark-based seniority applies to inter-wing transfers.

Rule 25(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (TNPSS Rules) dictates that seniority is determined by the rank in the approved candidates' list.

The Second Proviso to Rule 25(a) explicitly states that for Sub-Inspectors appointed by transfer from the Armed Reserve, seniority shall be fixed below the direct recruits of the category to which they are transferred, irrespective of the date of appointment.

The Court distinguished Ranjit Singh and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 612), clarifying it applied only to initial direct recruitment seniority and not to inter-wing transfers.

Rule 25(b) was deemed inapplicable as it governs seniority within the same class/category rather than transfers between different training-specific wings.

The Court reasoned that the 2010 recruitment marks and candidate options were already utilized to finalize the initial postings and wing-wise seniority, which remained settled for a decade.

The Court held that ARW and TPW are distinct wings with different training programs; therefore, a transfer initiated at the employee's request necessitates the application of the Second Proviso to Rule 25(a).

The Court rejected the appellants' reliance on Rule 25(b) and the Ranjit Singh case, noting that the latter only struck down the Sixth Proviso to Rule 25(a) and did not disturb the Second Proviso governing wing transfers.

Consequently, the "mark-based" system cannot be reopened after ten years of service to displace the settled seniority of officers who were initially posted to the TPW.

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeals and confirmed the order of the Writ Court. The Department was directed to fix the seniority of the transferred ARSIs accordingly and consider their promotions only when their turn arrives based on this recalculated seniority.