N.Kannan Associate Professor of Economics Periyar Arts College Cuddalore v. Government of Tamil Nadu

22.N.Kannan Associate Professor of Economics Periyar Arts College Cuddalore. .. PetitionersVersus1.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government Higher Education (F2) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.Director of Collegiate Education Directorate of Collegiate Education DPI Compound College Road, Chennai – 600 006.3.S.Kemasari SG Lecturer in Physics Bharathi Women's College, Chennai.4.Mangaikuruparan SG Lecturer in Home Science Government Arts College for Women, Madurai.5.V.Asha SG Lecturer in Physics Government College (Men) Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.6.P.Vijayalakshmi SG Lecturer in English Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.7.K.Senthal Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Shri Meenakshi Government College for Women Madurai.8.Rubala Juliet Selection Grade Lecture in Physics MVM Government Arts Colleges for Women Dindigul. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.E.Fulten Jose Newman Selection Grade Lecturer in Botany Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.10.S.Rajarajan Selection Grade Lecturer in Microbiology Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.11.V.Balakrishnan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Dr.Ambedkar Government Arts College Vyasarpadi, Chennai.12.G.Rajeswari Selection Grade Lecturer in Physics Government Arts College Women, Madurai – 2.13.K.R.Sekar Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Arignar Anna Government College, Attur.14.M.B.Chandrasekaran Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College, Vyasarpadi Chennai – 600 039.15.C.Ramakrishnan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Rajah Serfoji Government Arts College Thanjavur.16.L.Mariappan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Arignar Anna Government College, Attur.17.A.N.S.Vasudevan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Thiruvalluvar Government Arts College Rasipuram.18.S.Kalimuthu Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College, Mettur.19.R.Raju Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College, Salem – 7. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20.P.Sathyamoorthi Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 39.21.M.Ramachandran Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.22.Swarna Sethuraman Selection Grade Lecturer in Physics Queen Marry's College Chennai.23.P.S.Raguraman Selection Grade Lecturer in Sanskrit Presidency College, Chennai – 5.24.V.Vasanthakumari Selection Grade Lecturer in Bio Chemistry Government Arts College, Sivagangai.25.A.K.Chandra Selection Grade Lecturer in Sanskrit Presidency College, Chennai – 5.26.Chandra Venkatasubramanian Selection Grade Lecturer in Home Science Queen Marry's College, Chennai – 4.27.R.Durisamy Selection Grade Lecturer in Botany Thiruviga Government Arts College Thiruvarur.28.J.S.Manickarajan Selection Grade Lecturer in English Government Arts College (Men) Kumbakonam.29.A.S.M.Malinisamy Selection Grade Lecturer in English Queen Marry's College, Chennai – 4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30.A.Alagarsamy Associate Professor in Commerce Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.31.M.Radhakrishnan Associate Professor in Commerce Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.32.V.Balasubramanian Associate Professor in Commerce Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.33.S.P.Sathiavageesan Associate Professor in Geology Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.34.A.Anwarbasha Associate Professor in History Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.35.S.M.Sundaram Associate Professor in Commerce Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. 36.K.Subramanian Associate Professor in Maths Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.37.J.Roopkumar Associate Professor in Physics Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.38.P.Chellappa Associate Professor in Maths Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

39.M.Jeyaraj Associate Professor in Physics Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. 40.P.Perumal Associate Professor in Physics Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. 41.M.Ramasamy Associate Professor in Physics Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. 42.Tmt.Dr.R.Vijaya ..Respondents (R-42 impleaded as per Order dated 20.07.2011 in M.P.No.6 of 2011 in WP.14485/2011)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records from the 1st respondent relating to the Letter(Ms) No. 142 dated 08.06.2011 and the consequential proceedings ofthe 2nd respondent 15.06.2011, G.O.(Ms).No.148 dated 18.06.2011posting 33 Associate Professors and Principals of various GovernmentColleges and quash the same as being in violation of G.O.Ms.336,dated 08.03.1990, illegal, arbitrary and unjust and in violation ofArticle 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentlydirect the respondents 1 and 2 to refix the petitioners seniorityabove the respondents 3 to 41, grant all consequential benefits.[Prayer amended as per order dated 21.06.2011 in M.P.No.3 of 2011]For Petitioners :Shri.N.G.R.Prasadfor M/s.Row & ReddyFor Respondents-1 & 2:Shri.K.V.DhanapalanAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondents-3 & 5:Shri.V.K.VijayaragavanFor Respondents-10 & 42:Shri.C.SelvarajSenior Counselfor M/s.C.S.AssociatesFor Respondents-27 to 31,:Shri.N.R.Chandran35, 37 to 41Senior Counselfor Shri.R.Muthukannu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents-6, 7, 9,:Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram11, 14, 17, 18,Senior Counsel20, 23 & 25for M/s.Kavitha DeenadayalanFor Respondents-4, 8, 12, 13,:No Appearance15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 32, 33, 34 & 36W.P. NO.15159 OF 2011K.Rathinam.. PetitionerVersus1.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Principal Secretary Higher Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.Director of Collegiate Education D.P.I. Compound, College Road Chennai – 600 006.3.K.M.Prabhu Lecturer in English Government Arts College for Men Chennai – 600 035.4.K.M.Kandhi Lecturer in English Queen Marry's College, Chennai – 600 004.5.S.Kemasari SG Lecturer in Physics Bharathi Women's College Chennai – 600 005.6.A.Alagarsamy Associate Professor in Commerce Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.7.Mangaikurubaran SG Lecturer in Home Science Government Arts College for Women, Madurai.8.V.Asha SG Lecturer in Physics Government College (Men) Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.P.Vijayalakshmi SG Lecturer in English Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.10.K.Senthal Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Shri Meenakshi Government College for Women Madurai.11.Rubala Juliet Selection Grade Lecture in Physics MVM Government Arts Colleges for Women Dindigul.12.E.Fulten Jose Newman Selection Grade Lecturer in Botany Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.13.S.Rajarajan Selection Grade Lecturer in Microbiology Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.14.V.Balakrishnan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Dr.Ambedkar Government Arts College Vyasarpadi, Chennai.15.G.Rajeswari Selection Grade Lecturer in Physics Arulmigu Meenakshi Government Arts College Women Madurai – 2.16.K.R.Sekar Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Arignar Anna Government College, Attur.17.M.B.Chandrasekaran Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Dr.Ambedkar Government Arts College, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039.18.C.Ramakrishnan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Rajah Serfoji Government Arts College Thanjavur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.L.Mariappan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Arignar Anna Government College, Attur.20.A.N.S.Vasudevan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Thiruvalluvar Government Arts College Rasipuram.21.S.Kalimuthu Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College, Mettur.22.R.Raju Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College, Salem – 7.23.P.Sathyamoorthi Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Dr.Ambedkar Government Arts College Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 39.24.M.Ramachandran Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.25.Swarna Sethuraman Selection Grade Lecturer in Physics Queen Marry's College Chennai.26.P.S.Raguraman Selection Grade Lecturer in Sanskrit Presidency College, Chennai – 5.27.V.Vasanthakumari Selection Grade Lecturer in Bio Chemistry Government Arts College, Sivagangai.28.A.K.Chandra Selection Grade Lecturer in Sanskrit Presidency College, Chennai – 5.29.Chandra Venkatasubramanian Selection Grade Lecturer in Home Science Queen Marry's College, Chennai – 4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30.R.Durisamy Selection Grade Lecturer in Botany Thiruviga Government Arts College Thiruvarur.31.J.S.Manickarajan Selection Grade Lecturer in English Government Arts College (Men) Kumbakonam.32.A.S.M.Malinisamy Selection Grade Lecturer in English Queen Marry's College, Chennai – 4.33.M.Radhakrishnan Associate Professor in Commerce Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.34.V.Balasubramanian Associate Professor in Commerce Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.35.S.P.Sathiavageesan Associate Professor in Geology Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.36.A.Anwarbasha Associate Professor in History Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.37.S.M.Sundaram Associate Professor in Commerce Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. 38.K.Subramanian Associate Professor in Maths Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.39.J.Roopkumar Associate Professor in Physics Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

40.P.Chellappa Associate Professor in Maths Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi.41.M.Jeyaraj Associate Professor in Physics Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. 42.P.Perumal Associate Professor in Physics Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. 43.M.Ramasamy Associate Professor in Physics Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi. ..Respondents (R-7 to 43 impleaded as per Order dated 07.09.2011 in M.P.No.4 of 2011)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records from the 2nd respondent relating to theseniority list of Selection Grade Lecturers/ Associate Professors inGovernment Colleges for the year 2011 in so far as it relates toSl.No.15 to 55 of the said list and to quash the same andconsequently direct the first and second respondents to fix theseniority afresh by reckoning the date of regularisation of thepetitioner as 21.01.1981 and thereafter make promotion on the basisof the fresh list.For Petitioner : Shri.J.Srinivasa MohanFor Respondents-1 & 2:Shri.K.V.DhanapalanAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondent-3:Shri.R.SubramanianFor Respondent-5:Shri.V.K.VijayaragavanFor Respondent-6:Shri.N.R.ChandranSenior Counselfor Shri.R.Muthukannu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent-13: Mr.C.Selvaraj Sr. Counsel for M/s.C.S.Associates.For Respondents-4, 7 to 12 & 14 to 43 :No AppearanceW.P. NO.14580 OF 20111.V.Veerabadran Associate Professor in Botany L.N. Government College Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.2.P.Gowthaman Associate Professor in Commerce Periyar EVR College Trichy.3.M.Panneerselvam Associate Professor in Geography Periyar EVR College Trichy.4.Pandian.R Associate Professor in Plant Biology & Bio Technology Presidency College Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005... PetitionersVersus1.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Principal Secretary Higher Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.Director of Collegiate Education D.P.I. Compound, College Road Chennai – 600 006.3.G.P.Raman Associate Professor in Commerce Presidency College Chennai – 600 005.4.M.Mohanam Associate Professor in Commerce Muthurangam Government Arts College Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Jayanthi Sivananda Associate Professor in Maths Government Arts College, Coimbatore.6.C.Leelavathy Associate Professor in Chemistry Quaid-E-Millath Government Arts College for Women Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.7.Greetamary Thendral.D Associate Professor in Zoology Ramalingam Government Arts College for Women Namakkal.8.K.M.Ponnathal Principal, Grade-II Government Arts College for Women Nilakottai, Dindigul.9.Dr.K.Ambujam Principal, Grade-II Dr.Ambedkar Arts College Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039.10.R.Ambigapathi Principal, Grade-II Rajagopalasamy Government Arts College Mannarkudi.11.Dr.A.Neelaiyadakshi Principal, Grade-II Arignar Anna Government Arts College Villupuram.12.Tmt.Peru Sivagana Janaki Principal, Grade-II Government Arts College Chingleput...Respondents (R-8 to 12 impleaded as per order dated 29.06.2011 in M.P.No.5 of 2011)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarifiled Mandamus,calling for the concerned records from the 2nd respondent, quash theSeniority List issued by the 2nd respondent of Selection GradeLecturer/Associate Professors for the year 2011 from Serial No.56 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 496 and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to issue fresh SeniorityList of Selection Grade Lecturer/ Associate Professors by fixingSeniority based on the date of regularization of service and byfollowing communal rotation and thereafter effect promotion based onthe same.For Petitioners : Ms.Vaigaifor Shri.Balan HaridasFor Respondents-1 & 2:Shri.K.V.DhanapalanAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondents-8 to 12:Shri.K.Venkataramanifor Shri.M.MuthappanFor Respondents-3, 4, 6 & 7:Ms.D.NagasailaFor Respondent-5:No AppearanceW.P. NO.15364 OF 20111.S.Tamilmani General Secretary The Tamil Nadu Government Collegiate Teachers' Association Narasingam Nilayam No.2, Sydoji Street Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.2.V.Prabakaran Associate Professor of Zoology Dr.Ambedkar Government Arts College Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039.3.Joseph Durai Associate Professor of Economics Presidency College Chennai – 600 005... PetitionersVersus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government Higher Education (F2) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.Director of Collegiate Education Directorate of Collegiate Education DPI Compound College Road, Chennai – 600 006.3.S.Kemasari S.G. Lecturer in Physics Bharathi Women's College, Chennai.4.Mangaikuruparan SG Lecturer in Home Science Government Arts College for Women Madurai.5.V.Asha SG Lecturer in Physics Government College (Men) Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.6.P.Vijayalakshmi SG Lecturer in English Presidency College Chennai – 600 005.7.K.Senthal Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Shri Meenakshi Government College for Women Madurai...RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records and quash the Letter (Ms) No. 142 dated08.06.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequentialproceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 15.06.2011 together with theinter-se seniority list of the Associate Professors working in theGovernment Arts and Science Colleges in Tamilnadu read with G.O.Ms.No.148 dated 18.06.2011 and consequently direct the respondents tore-fix the seniority of Assistant Professors (now redesignated asAssociate Professors) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.336 dated 08.03.1990grant all consequential benefits including promotion to the post ofPrincipal from 15.6.2011 together with 12% interest per annum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Ms.D.NagasailaFor Respondents-1 & 2:Shri.K.V.DhanapalanAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondents-3 to 7 :No AppearanceW.P. NO.19800 OF 2011K.M.PrabhuPrincipalChikannai Government Arts CollegeTirupur... PetitionerVersus1.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government Higher Education Department Chennai – 600 009.2.Director of Collegiate Education Chennai – 600 006.3.A.Lingammal SG Lecturer in Physics Ramalingam Government Arts College for Women Namakkal.4.S.Kemasari S.G. Lecturer in Physics Bharathi Women's College, Chennai.5.Mangaikuruparan SG Lecturer in Home Science Government Arts College for Women, Madurai.6.V.Asha SG Lecturer in Physics Government College (for Men) Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.P.Vijayalakshmi SG Lecturer in English Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.8.K.Senthal Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Shri Meenakshi Government College for Women Madurai.9.Rubala Juliet Selection Grade Lecture in Physics MVM Government Arts Colleges for Women Dindigul.10.E.Fulten Jose Newman Selection Grade Lecturer in Botany Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.11.S.Rajarajan Selection Grade Lecturer in Microbiology Presidency College, Chennai – 600 005.12.V.Balakrishnan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Dr.Ambedkar Government Arts College Vyasarpadi, Chennai.13.G.Rajeswari Selection Grade Lecturer in Physics Government Arts College Women, Madurai – 2.14.K.R.Sekar Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Arignar Anna Government College, Attur.15.M.B.Chandrasekaran Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College, Vyasarpadi Chennai – 600 039.16.C.Ramakrishnan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Rajah Serfoji Government Arts College Thanjavur.17.L.Mariappan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Arignar Anna Government College, Attur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.A.N.S.Vasudevan Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Thiruvalluvar Government Arts College Rasipuram.19.S.Kalimuthu Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College, Mettur.20.R.Raju Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College, Salem – 7.21.P.Sathyamoorthi Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Government Arts College Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 39.22.M.Ramachandran Selection Grade Lecturer in Chemistry Alagappa Government Arts College Karaikudi...RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling forthe records pertaining to the seniority list dated 15.06.2011 annexedto Letter No. Ms.No.142 dated 08.06.2011 issued by the 1st respondentquash the same in so far as the fixation of the seniority ofrespondents 3 to 22 above the petitioner and direct the 1st respondentto fix the Seniority of the petitioner in S.No.14 in the SeniorityList.For Petitioner : Shri.R.SubramanianFor Respondents-1 & 2:Shri.K.V.DhanapalanAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondents-3 to 22 :No AppearanceC O M M O N O R D E RIn view of the common issues raised in all the WritPetitions challenging the same order impugned, they have been takenup together and a common order is passed. As no relief is claimed bythe learned counsels appearing for the petitioners against theAssistant Professor directly selected and shown as 1 to 14 in theimpugned list, the word 'respondents' mentioned in this order willnot make any reference to them by only against other privaterespondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.This is the second round of litigation pertaining to theInter-Se-Seniority in the post of Assistant Professors between thosewho have been directly appointed initially under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1)of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules on the onehand, and Tutors / Demonstrates originally appointed under Rule 10(a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rulesand thereafter upgraded/promoted as Assistant Professors afterundergoing a special qualifying test and those Assistant Professorswho have been absorbed in pursuant to the taking over of theerstwhile Alagappa University on the other hand. 3.The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.14485, 14580 and 15364 of2011 have been filed by the petitioners who have been appointed asAssistant Professors under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil NaduState and Subordinate Services Rules. The Writ Petition inW.P.No.14580 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners who are alsoappointed as Assistant Professors under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of theTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules but they challengedthe impugned Inter-Se-Seniority list on the ground that Rule ofReservation will have to be followed once again among the AssistantProfessors who have been appointed earlier, while supporting the caseof the respondents on the Inter-Se-Seniority. The Writ Petition inW.P.No.19800 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner being anappointee under the physically handicapped category and working as aPrincipal at present, challenging the impugned order on the groundthat he cannot be placed like that of others as he has beenregularised with retrospective effect which order has not beenchallenged. Even though the persons shown in the impugned senioritylist from 1 to 14 have been added as parties in these proceedings allthe learned counsels fairly submitted that they are not challengingthe said fixation of the Inter-Se-Seniority list pertaining to themas they have been appointed, admittedly by following the due processof law in permanent vacancies through the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission. 4.The earlier fixation of Inter-Se-Seniority list waschallenged before this Court. This Court in W.P.No.8495 of 2010, etc.dated 28.03.2011 has passed the following order:"i)The Government is directed to consider the issue raisedin these Writ Petitions and prepare Inter-se-Seniority Listof Lecturers / Selection Grade Lecturers / Readers on orbefore 31.05.2011 and only on the basis of the saidseniority list, the Principal posts which are lying vacanthave to be filled up. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii)As the above direction will settle the controversy onceand for all, a direction is issued in W.P.No.8495 of 2010to pass orders on the representation of the petitionerdated 31.03.2010.iii)Insofar as the prayer sought for in W.P.No.11176 of2010 is concerned, the status-quo as on date is directed tobe maintained till re-opening of the colleges for theacademic year 2011-2012.iv)W.P.No.16272 of 2010 is disposed of with the abovedirections.v)As the issue is now directed to be considered by theGovernment, it is made clear that this Court is notexpressing any opinion on the merits of the contentionsraised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as wellas the learned Senior Counsel and other learned Counselsappearing for the private respondents and it is for theGovernment to decide the issue and pass appropriate ordersand finalise the seniority list within the time mentionedabove."In pursuant to the same, the order impugned has been passed which isthe subject matter of these Writ Petitions.Facts in brief:5.In order to decide the disputes between the parties, thefactual narration of the circumstances pertaining to the rules,regularisation and the Government Orders covering the parties beforethis Court is necessarily required to be placed on record.6.By the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.2659,Education Department, dated 28.12.1977, after considering the requestof the Association of Tutors / Demonstrators, an order was passedthat such of those Tutors / Demonstrators who have put in 5 or moreyears in service as on 01.12.1977 who also possess post-graduatequalification would be straight away upgraded as Assistant Professors/ Lecturers with effect from 01.12.1977. A further representation wasmade by the Association of Tutors / Demonstrators, which paved wayfor another Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.613, EducationDepartment, dated 27.03.1978, modifying earlier order passed inG.O.Ms.No.2659, Education Department, dated 28.12.1977. Accordinglyin supersession of the earlier order passed, all the Post GraduateTutors / Demonstrators, who have completed 3 years of service as on01.12.1977 were directed to be upgraded as Assistant Professors witheffect from 01.12.1977. The concession given in the Government Orderwas also made favourably to those Tutors / Demonstrators, who possess/ acquire Post Graduate qualifications and complete 3 years of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service in their respective posts as and when they fulfil 3 yearsterm. In the year 1978, Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu CollegiateEducation Service was made through a Government Order passed inG.O.Ms.No.1052, Education (Rules B1) dated 09.06.1978, Clause VIIwhich deals with the post of Assistant Professor prescribing severalmodes. Accordingly, an appointment can be made as an AssistantProfessor either by direct recruitment or recruitment by transferfrom among Tutors and Demonstrators in the Tamil Nadu EducationalSubordinate Service.7.While dealing with the case of Tutors and Demonstratorswho have been appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil NaduState and Subordinate Services Rules as well as the AssistantProfessors, a Government Order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.118, Education(P-2) dated 23.01.1980. Accordingly, the Government has decided toconduct a special qualifying test organized by the Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission for the purpose of regularisation of suchtemporary services in the Cadre of Assistant Professors, Tutors andDemonstrators in the Collegiate Education Department. Therefore, theGovernment Orders clearly stipulates a special qualifying test onlyto those employees appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the TamilNadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.8.The special qualifying test was conducted for the Tutorsand Demonstrators who have been appointed on a temporary basis by 10(a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.By the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Bulletin, dated16.08.1981, the list of selected candidates have been announced inthe Cadre of Tutors / Demonstrators. Admittedly, this selectionprocess is a in-house procedure by way of an oral test. The privaterespondents herein starting from Nos.15 to 43 in the impugnedpromotional list have been selected in pursuant to the specialqualifying test. Thereafter, they have been appointed temporarily asAssistant Professors. Their appointment in the Cadre of Tutors /Demonstrators were regularised by the Directorate of CollegiateEducation, as per the proceedings dated 24.11.1982. A GovernmentOrder was passed in G.O.Ms.No.1820, Department of Education, Scienceand Technology, dated 19.09.1983, which provides for a retrospectiveregularisation of services of Tutors / Demonstrators and AssistantProfessors from the date of the first temporary appointment. Clause 4of the said order states that for the purpose of an upgradation andpromotion as Assistant Professor from Tutor / Demonstrator, the dateof Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission's letter intimating theselection as Tutor / Demonstrator will be taken for reckoning thethree years of service.9.The above said facts would clearly indicate that theTutors / Demonstrators formed a separate Cadre and the AssistantProfessors formed another Cadre. The post of Assistant Professor can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be obtained by a Tutor / Demonstrator only on complying with theGovernment Orders by way of special qualifying test and the requiredservice. It is also not in dispute that the contesting parties,namely, the petitioners and the private respondents have beenappointed in their respective Cadres under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of theTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules except those who wereabsorbed from the erstwhile Alagappa University. This position isvery clear.10.The Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1465, EducationDepartment, dated 20.12.1985, states that retrospective regularistionof services of Tutors / Demonstrators and Assistant Professors fromthe date of first temporary appointment is made by taking intoconsideration of the representation of the Association of teachers.As per the said order, it has been made clear that Tutors /Demonstrators and Assistant Professors cannot claim promotion orupgradation (i.e.) from Tutor / Demonstrator to Assistant Professorand from Assistant Professor to Professor on a later date in view ofthe retrospective regularisation. Therefore, the said GovernmentOrder has been passed by way of a concession and also to prevent thebeneficiaries from staking any claim against the regular appointeewho has been appointed in accordance with rules.11.By the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1190,Education Department, dated 27.07.1987, the Government upgradedTutors/ Demonstrators temporarily as Assistant Professors with effectfrom the date mentioned therein. In the said order also, it has beenspecifically stated in so far as the question of regularisation ofthose persons in the service as Assistant Professors, the same has tobe done in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission. Taking note of the Government Order passed inG.O.Ms.No.1190, Education Department, dated 27.07.1987, anotherGovernment Order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.90, Education Department,dated 19.01.1989, which states that posts have been created in theCadre of Assistant Professors in order to fix those Tutors /Demonstrators who have been upgraded in pursuant to the specialqualifying test conducted in the year 1980 by the Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission. Accordingly, 37 posts have been created. Finally,the Government in the Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.759, EducationDepartment dated 11.08.1993 has regularised the services of Tutors /Demonstrators who have been selected by the special qualifying testconducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as AssistantProfessors / Lecturers. This decision has been made as a special caseas the recruitment to the post of Lecturer has been excluded from thepurview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and entrusted tothe "Teachers Recruitment Board" with effect from 22.09.1989.Therefore, the said order was passed after noting that there was noprovision to obtain the concurrence for the regularisation of theservices of the Lecturers who have been appointed on upgradation of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the posts of Tutor / Demonstrator. 12.The facts narrated above would show that the privaterespondents who have been appointed temporarily under Rule 10 (a) (i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules werepermitted to undergo a special qualifying test subject to the otherconditions. Thereafter, they were allowed to work as AssistantProfessors and their services as in the said capacity wereregularised with retrospective effect. This is the admitted factualposition. Thus, Tutors / Demonstrators have been appointedtemporarily as Assistant Professors and their services wereregularised with retrospective effect in the said Cadre.13.Now, we have to deal with the position of the AssistantProfessors who have been appointed temporarily under Rule 10 (a) (i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules andthereafter regularised. These Assistant Professors have beenappointed following the Rule of Reservation. There appointment ordersalso would indicate the said position. Now they also made arepresentation like that of the temporary appointments as Tutors /Demonstrators seeking to regularise their services. Accordingly, theGovernment Order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education Department,dated 16.12.1988. It is not in dispute that for these persons alsowho have been appointed earlier as Assistant Professors temporarilyunder Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and SubordinateServices Rules, the Government Orders have been passed inG.O.Ms.No.802, Education Department, dated 06.06.1986 andG.O.Ms.No.1224, Education Department, dated 13.07.1988. Therefore,irrespective of the fact as to whether the earlier Government Orderspassed would cover the temporary appointments in the Cadre ofAssistant Professors or not, separate Government Orders referredabove have been passed for them providing for the special qualifyingtest. It is to be borne in mind that the special qualifying test isfor the purpose of regularising them in the Cadre of AssistantProfessors. 14.However, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissionsuggested that it would be a futile and time consuming exercise tosuggest the temporary appointments to undergo the special qualifyingtest and therefore, the said condition can be relaxed. The proposalof the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was accepted by theGovernment as they would be placed below the candidates alreadyselected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. While fixingtheir seniority, these candidates will take their seniority below thelast candidate selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissionfor the year. Therefore, the Government Order makes it clear thatwhen in a particular year a selection is made in accordance withrules by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for a permanentvacancy no preference can be made to a temporary appointee under Rule10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ over such a candidate. However, the Government in the said order hassaid that Rule of Reservation would be followed once again. 15.Thereafter, another Government Order was passed inG.O.Ms.No.336, Education Department, dated 08.03.1990 modifying theearlier Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1840, EducationDepartment, dated 16.12.1988 holding that the seniority of personswill be fixed with reference to their date of temporary appointmentin the said posts without applying the Rule of Reservation. Thisposition has been taken since the Rule of Reservation has beenfollowed already and an anomaly was created by which the person whohas been appointed subsequently has been placed over and abovepersons who have been appointed earlier even though the Rule ofReservation was followed at the time of every appointment. 16.The Government also considered the retrospectiveregularisation and directed the Directorate of Collegiate Educationto send the proposal for the retrospective regularisation of thosewho have been regularised as per the earlier Government Order passedin G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education Department, dated 16.12.1988. The sameview has been reiterated by the subsequent Government Order passed inG.O.Ms.No.154, Education Department, dated 12.02.1993, by which, theGovernment after taking into consideration of the earlier GovernmentOrders passed in G.O.Ms.No.1820, Department of Education, Science andTechnology, dated 19.09.1983, G.O.Ms.No.1465, Education Department,dated 20.12.1985, and G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education Department, dated16.12.1988 has passed orders granting retrospective regularisation ofservice of Assistant Professors from the date of their temporaryappointment. However, the retrospective regularisation granted by theGovernment has been kept in abeyance, as representations have beenmade by some of the Assistant Professors who are regularised,claiming that the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1840,Education Department, dated 16.12.1988 will have to be applied byfollowing the Rule of Reservation once again. Thereafter, this Courthas passed the orders referred supra, directing the first respondentto reconsider the entire issue. In pursuant to which, the orders havebeen passed by the Government followed by the consequential directionissued by the Directorate of Collegiate Education which have been putinto challenge before this Court.17.Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners inW.P.No.14485, 14580 and 15364 of 2011 in sum and substance is thatwhile regularising the service of promotees from the Cadre ofTutors / Demonstrators in the Cadre of Assistant Professors and thatof those who have been absorbed from the Alagappa University andthose temporary appointments who have been absorbed from the AlagappaUniversity their case also will have to be considered on the sameline by taking into consideration of the services with retrospectiveeffect from the date of their appointments decided in the GovernmentOrders passed in G.O.Ms.No.336, Education Department, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

08.03.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.154, Education Department, dated 12.02.1993.However, the petitioners request were rejected in the order impugnedby making reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Courtholding that a temporary employee appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1)of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules cannot counthis initial appointment for the purpose of fixing his seniority.Challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed bythem.18.In pursuant to the enactment made, the undergraduatecourses in the Alagappa College, Karaikudi, have been taken in itsfold by the Government. The Government also sanctioned the creationof posts temporarily for a period of one year. Thereafter, anotherGovernment Order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.344, Education Department,dated 27.03.1989, by which, the teaching staff of Alagappa College,Karaikudi have been absorbed. They have been absorbed by fixing theirseniority with reference to the dates of their absorption in theGovernment services i.e. 01.05.1985. Therefore by the said GovernmentOrder, the seniority of the employees of the erstwhile AlagappaUniversity has been fixed with retrospective effect from the dates oftheir absorption i.e. 01.05.1985. These teachers have been placedabove the petitioners and below the private respondents who wereinitially appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Stateand Subordinate Services Rules as Tutors / Demonstrators andthereafter promoted / upgraded as Assistant Professors. Theseteachers also contend that the petitioners being temporary appointeescannot seek to steal a march over them.W.P.No.14580 of 201119.This Writ Petition has been filed by the AssociateProfessors who have been appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of theTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. According to them,the categorisation fixed as between the Associate Professors who havebeen appointed directly and through promotion and on absorption iscorrect but the impugned order will have to be set aside for notfollowing the Rule of Reservation. In other words, it is theircontention that the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1840,Education Department, dated 16.12.1988 will have to be followed andthe subsequent Government Orders will be of no consequence.W.P.No.19800 of 201120.This Writ Petition also pertains to a direct appointee inthe Cadre of Assistant Professor. The petitioner herein has beenappointed in the category of physically handicapped person. Theappointment order also states that he has been appointed in the saidcategory as a special case. By a subsequent Government Order passedin G.O.Ms.No.2172, Department of Education, Science and Technology,dated 17.11.1983, the said appointment made earlier has beenregularised from the date of initial temporary appointment which wasmade on 02.05.1981. However, the petitioner was also placed below the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ others notwithstanding the fact that his services were regularised bya specific order with retrospective effect which has not been putinto challenge. In this connection, this Court will have to observethat none of the parties including the petitioners and respondents inthe other Writ Petitions have raised any serious objections to takeinto consideration of the case of the petitioner herein for thepurpose of fixing the seniority from the date of his initialappointment.Submissions of the petitioners:21.Shri.N.G.R.Prasad, Shri.J.Srinivasa Mohan, Ms.Vaigai,Ms.D.Nagasaila and Shri.R.Subramanian, learned counsels appearing forthe petitioners submitted that admittedly the petitioners wereworking although in a temporary capacity in the Cadre of AssistantProfessors at the time of entry of the private respondents who arepromoted / upgraded from the Cadre of Tutors / Demonstrators. Whensuch persons can be appointed with retrospective effect, thepetitioners cannot be treated differently, the action of the firstrespondent is totally arbitrary, unfair and therefore violation ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent hastotally misconstrued the decision rendered by the Honourable ApexCourt in K.MADALAIMUTHU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS[(2006) 6 SCC 558]. The respondents 1 and 2 will have to comply withthe Government Orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.336, Education Department,dated 18.03.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.154, Education Department, dated12.02.1993. There is no bar under the rules for taking intoconsideration of the period of officiation done in a post prior tothe regularisation. The private respondents were not appointment bythe Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. A mere writing of an oraltest by a subordinate Cadre cannot be a basis for treating thepetitioners differently. For the decision taken by the Government innot conducting the test, the petitioners cannot be put at fault.22.Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Public Service CommissionRegulation, 1954, cannot be a bar for considering the case of thepetitioners. The relaxation mentioned in the Government Orders arepertaining to the age and other qualification.23.In so far as the case of the respondents regularised fromthe erstwhile Alagappa University is concerned, when they were placedbelow as against the promottee Assistant Professors they cannot seekto steal a march over the petitioners. Admittedly, when thoserespondents were absorbed the petitioners were working as AssistantProfessors and those respondents were also working on a temporarybasis. When they were regularised with retrospective effect, thepetitioners cannot be treated differently.24.In so far as the contentions raised in W.P.No.14580 of2011 is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the appointmentorders would indicate that the Rule of Reservation has been followed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ There is no law which provides for the following of reservation twiceover. What has been challenged is a seniority list which has beenpassed by taking into consideration of the Rule of Reservation. Thepetitioners without challenging the subsequent Government Orderscannot challenge the order impugned. There is nothing on record tosuggest that Rule of Reservation has not been followed and on thecontrary the materials would amply prove that the same has beenscrupulously adhered to. 25.In support of their contentions, the learned counselswould rely upon the following judgments:G.P.DOVAL AND OTHERS vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF U.P. ANDOTHERS [AIR 1984 SCC 1527]STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER vs. E.PARIPOORNAM AND OTHERS [1992SUPP (1) SCC 420]G.S.VENKAT REDDY AND OTHERS vs. GOVT. OF A.P. AND OTHERS [1993 SUPP(3) SCC 425]P.V.T.PHILLIP vs. P.NARASIMHA REDDY AND OTHERS [1993 SUPP (3) SCC 438]M.JANARDHAN AND OTHERS vs. STATE A.P. AND OTHERS [1994 SUPP (3) SCC298]L.CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS [(1999) 8 SCC287]DR CHANDRA PRAKASH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [(2002)10 SCC 710]K.MADALAIMUTHU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS [(2006) 6SCC 558]M.P.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS vs. A.KRISHNAN AND OTHERS [(2009) 6 SCC 428]S.SUMNYAN AND OTHERS vs. LIMI NIRI AND OTHERS [(2010) 6 SCC 791]AJIT SINGH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [(1999) 7 SCC209]BIMLESH TANWAR vs. STATE HARYANA AND OTHERS [(2003) 5 SCC 604]STATE OF U.P. vs. ZR.R.K.TANDON [(1996) 10 SCC 247]STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. ARCHANA SHUKLA AND OTHERS [2011(3) LLN 461]UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. SATISH CHANDRA MATHUR [(2001) 10 SCC185]UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER vs. LALITA S.RAO AND OTHERS [(2001) 5 SCC384]R.K.MOBISANA SINGH vs. KH.THEMBA SINGH AND OTHERS [(2008) 1 SCC 747]DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS II ENGINEERING OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION vs. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [(1990) 2 SCC 715]SURAJ PARKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF J&k AND OTHERS [(2000) 7SCC 561]Submissions of the respondents:26.Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for therespondents would submit that the petitioners being appointed under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate ServicesRules cannot seek as a right that they should be given the samepreference as that of others. The petitioners right would arise onlyfrom the date of the regularisation. Till the date of regularisationthe petitioners did not have any right over the post. Inasmuch as theappointments have been made by relaxing the rules, the GovernmentOrders are not applicable to the petitioners. The Tutors /Demonstrators who have been promoted / upgraded stand in a differentfooting as they have been appointed and approved by the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission. 27.The Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1840, EducationDepartment, dated 16.12.1988 deals only for one year. As per theproviso contained under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Stateand Subordinate Services Rules, the petitioners did not have anyright to insist that their services would be regularised withretrospective effect. The petitioners have not gone through theprocess of selection. The ratio laid down by the Honourable ApexCourt in K.MADALAIMUTHU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS[(2006) 6 SCC 558] would apply in all force to the case on hand. Theeffects of upgradation would start from the date of the order. TheGovernment Orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.336, Education Department,dated 18.03.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.154, Education Department, dated12.02.1993 are not applicable to the case of the private respondentsas they are pertaining to the temporary Assistant Professors directlyappointed. 28.In support of the above said contentions, the learnedsenior counsels appearing for the respondents, Shri.C.Selvaraj andShri.N.R.Chandran, have made reliance upon the following judgments:STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER vs. E.PARIPOORNAM AND OTHERS [1992 IILLJ 619]SYED KHALID RIZVI AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1993 ILLJ 887]STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS vs. AGHORE NATH DEY AND OTHERS [1993II LLJ 475]J & K PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ETC. vs. DR.NARINDER MOHAN ANDOTHERS, ETC. [1994 (1) ASLJ 218]STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS vs. U.P.STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION andOTHERS [AIR 1994 SC 1654(1)]P.SRINIVAS vs. M.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS [(2004) 2 SCC 459]A.UMARANI vs. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS [(2004) 7SCC 112]SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS[(2006) 4 SCC 1]K.MALALAIMUTHU vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS [(2006) 3 MLJ 161]P.PERUMAL vs. A.V.SURESHBABU AND OTHERS [(2007) 4 MLJ 160]M.P.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS vs. A.KRISHNAN AND OTHERS [AIR 2009 SC2809] P.S.JAGANNATHAN vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP.BY ITS SERCRETARY TO https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [ORDER INW.A.NO.237 OF 2010 DATED 12.07.2010]K.MADALAIMUTHU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS [(2006) 6SCC 558]M.P.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS vs. A.KRISHNAN AND OTHERS [(2009) 6 SCC 428]P.PERUMAL vs. A.V.SURESHBABU AND OTHERS [(2007) 4 MLJ 160]CH.NARAYANA RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2011 (2) LLN 349]R.K.MOBISANA SINGH vs. KH.THEMBA SINGH AND OTHERS [(2008) 1 SCC 747]AMARJEET SINGH AND OTHERS vs. DEVI RATAN AND OTHER [(2010) 1 MLJ 833]S.SUMNYAN AND OTHERS vs. LIMI NIRI AND OTHERS [(2010) 6 SCC 791] 29.Ms.Vaigai, would submit that the Writ Petition filed inW.P.No.14580 of 2011 will have to be allowed, since the Rule ofReservation has not been followed. There is no uniform application ofa running roster. As the appointments were made on an emergencybasis, the roster system was not followed. Therefore, the learnedsenior submitted that the Writ Petition will have to be allowed, bysetting aside the Inter-Se-Seniority list, with a direction to refixthe same based upon the seniority among the Assistant Professors whohave been appointed directly.30.Shri.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner in W.P.No.19800 of 2011 would submit that the said WritPetition will have to be allowed, as the petitioner's services havebeen regularised which has not been put into challenge. Thepetitioner has been appointed in a separate category applicable forspecially handicapped person. As the said order has become final andthe petitioner having been working as the Principal at present, theseniority cannot be drawn demoting him without following theprocedure and the respondents are estopped from drawing the senioritypanel after the regularisation of the service of the petitioner withretrospective effect. Therefore, the Writ Petition will have to beallowed.W.P.Nos.14485, 15159, 15364 and 19800 of 201131.Admittedly, the petitioners have been appointed underRule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate ServicesRules and the appointments were made temporarily, of course in aregular post, similar to the case of the private respondents who areshown as 15 to 43 in the impugned seniority list. The only differenceis that they have been appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of theTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules in the Cadre ofTutors / Demonstrators whereas the petitioners have been appointed inthe Cadre of Assistant Professors. A narration of the GovernmentOrders referred earlier would show that the posts held by the privaterespondents except 1 to 14 in the impugned list of AssistantProfessor is a temporary post by way of upgradation. This position isvery clear that both these posts are not inter changeable (Tutors /Demonstrators and Assistant Professors). That is the reason why theGovernment Orders have been passed earlier upgrading those Tutors / https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Demonstrators who have put in sufficient years of service andthereafter directing the temporary appointees under Rule 10 (a) (i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules to undergoa special qualifying test. It is those respondents who were appointedas per Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and SubordinateServices Rules as Tutors / Demonstrators who were specificallydirected to undergo the test. This is an oral test conducted by theTamil Nadu Public Service Commission. This test is conducted for thepurpose of regularisation in the "Cadre of Tutors / Demonstrators".They have been regularised by the orders of Government and the periodof three years mentioned in the Government Orders was to be reckonedfrom the date of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission intimatingthe selection. 32.The Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1465, EducationDepartment, dated 20.12.1985 also states that it is a concession. Thesubsequent Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.759, EducationDepartment dated 11.08.1993 which has been read in the GovernmentOrder passed in G.O.Ms.No.23, Education, Science and TechnologyDepartment, dated 09.01.1995 leave no doubt in the mind of this Courtthat the regularisation of the private respondents shown as 15 to 43in the impugned list of their services in the post of Lecturers hasbeen done as a special case. It was done in view of the GovernmentOrder passed in G.O.Ms.No.1342, Education, dated 22.09.1989 that therecruitment to the post of Lecturer has been exempted from thepurview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, as the same wasshifted to "Teachers Recruitment Board" from the said date.Therefore, there is no specific provision to obtain the concurrencefor the regularisation of the service of Lecturers who have beenappointed or upgraded from the post of Tutors / Demonstrators. Hence,in view of the said clear position as seen from the Government Orderpassed in G.O.Ms.No.759, Education Department dated 11.08.1993, thisCourt is of the considered view that the petitioners cannot betreated differently to that of the private respondents shown in theimpugned list as 15 to 43.33.The contentions of the learned counsels appearing for therespondents that the respondents were made to undergo a specialqualifying test and therefore they should be treated differentlycannot be countenanced. This was done only in the "Cadre of Tutors /Demonstrators" that too for the purpose of regularisation alone. Thesaid test was also done not by way of an open competition but by wayof an in-house process. Therefore, the test itself was a concessionspecifically given to those temporary employees under Rule 10 (a) (i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules in theCadre of Tutors / Demonstrators. Be that as it may, the question is,can such persons who have been regularised in their Cadre be allowedto have seniority over the petitioners merely because they have beenasked to officiate in the promotional post. The answer has to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "No". Merely because the Tutors / Demonstrators have passed the testand allowed temporarily to continue as Assistant Professors theycannot steal a march over the persons who have been already workingalthough in a temporary capacity. It is not in dispute that therespondents were promoted and upgraded from the post of Tutors /Demonstrators. An upgradation simplicitor is different from anupgradation / promotion. Considering the said issue, the HonourableApex Court in BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED vs. R.SANTHAKUMARIVELUSAMY AND OTHERS [(2011) 9 SCC 510] has held as follows:"29......Clause (iv) Generally, upgradationrelates to and applies to all positions in acategory, who have completed a minimum period ofservice. Upgradation, can also be restricted to apercentage of posts in a cadre with reference toseniority (instead of being made available to allemployees in the category) and it will still bean upgradation simplicitor. But if there is aprocess of selection or consideration ofcomparative merit or suitability for granting theupgradation or benefit of advancement to a higherpay scale, it will be a promotion. A merescreening to eliminate such employees whoseservice records may contain adverse entries orwho might have suffered punishment, may notamount to a process of selection leading topromotion and the elimination may still be a partof the process of upgradation simplicitor. Wherethe upgradation involves a process of selectioncriteria similar to those applicable topromotion, then it will, in effect, be apromotion, though termed as upgradation. ......." Therefore, this Court is of the view that the post of AssistantProfessors being a promotional post involving a process of selection,tests undergone in the subordinate post cannot be the basis fordistinguishing the respondents as against the petitioners. 34.It is also seen that the Government Orders passed inG.O.Ms.No.1840, Education Department, dated 16.12.1988 andG.O.Ms.No.336, Education Department, dated 18.03.1990, do not dealwith any other classification. They only deal with the relaxationregarding the age and other related issues. Therefore, the submissionof the learned counsel for the respondents that the Government Ordersrefer to the appointment under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil NaduState and Subordinate Services Rules cannot be accepted as in thesaid case there is no necessity for passing the said GovernmentOrders. Moreover, the respondents 1 and 2 are estopped from taking adifferent stand by passing the order impugned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

35.The Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.336, EducationDepartment, dated 18.03.1990 has not been annulled or withdrawn. Thesaid Government Order and the subsequent Government Order passed inG.O.Ms.No.154, Education Department, dated 12.02.1993 are very muchin force. The Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.336, EducationDepartment, dated 18.03.1990 has been kept in abeyance only on theground of dispute regarding the Rule of Reservation. In fact theGovernment in the counter filed in W.P.No.14580 of 2011 has madesubstantial reliance upon the said Government Order while justifyingthe stand that it has followed the Rule of Reservation. Therefore,this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to getthe relief as per the said Government Orders.36.A perusal of the Government Orders passed inG.O.Ms.No.1840, Education Department, dated 16.12.1988 andG.O.Ms.No.336, Education Department, dated 18.03.1990 would show thatit is the Government which has decided to accept the recommendationof the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in not having the specialqualifying test to the petitioners. In fact the petitioners did notmake any request for dispensing with the same. The reason assigned bythe Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has been accepted by theGovernment that the said process would be time consuming and a futileexercise. Therefore, when the Government itself feels that suchexercise is futile and time consuming it is estopped from contendingthat the private respondents are in a better position. Absolutely itis not fault of the petitioners. Whether the petitioners undergo theoral qualifying test or not would not make any qualitative differenceto their case. Merely because a process was adopted by one set ofemployees in a particular Cadre and the same was given up by theemployer concerned for the other set of employees in some otherdifferent Cadre for the reason best known to it the same cannot be aground to treat them differently. Applying the same ratio it cannotbe said that the private respondents 15 to 43 as shown in theimpugned list are in fact selected by the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission. 37.As discussed above, it is nothing but a process forregularisation in a subordinate Cadre. That is the reason why theGovernment Orders stipulate further condition of three years.Therefore, when a person working in the Cadre of Tutor / Demonstratorgets himself elevated to the Cadre of Assistant Professor but in atemporary capacity he cannot overcome another person who is alreadyworking in a said capacity. In other words, both those persons arestanding in a very same footing regarding their respective entry in aparticular Cadre. As discussed above, there is no Government Rulewhich prescribes for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor.The concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was alsonot required for such a promotion. Therefore, the classificationssought to be made by the learned counsels appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents cannot at all be accepted.38.The learned counsels appearing for the respondents madesubstantial reliance upon the Rules, particularly Rule 16 of theTamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation, 1954 and Rule 10 (a)(i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. ThisCourt is of the view that there is no necessity to go into thoserules. We are dealing with the case between the petitioners who areunder Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and SubordinateServices Rules appointees as Assistant Professors on one hand andthose who were appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil NaduState and Subordinate Services Rules as Tutors / Demonstrators andthereafter promoted on the other hand. In other words, we are notdealing with the case of appointees under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of theTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules regularisedsubsequently and thereafter seeking retrospective regularisation fromthe date of the initial entry and a direct recruitee in the sameCadre. 39.On the contrary, a combined reading of the regularisationand the rules would show that there is sufficient power for theGovernment to consider the case of an employee to take intoconsideration of the past service particularly in a case wheresimilarly placed persons have been given the said benefit. Asdiscussed above, the respondents are no where in a better positionthan the petitioners who have been appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules as bothare appointed in the same mode in their respective Cadres. It is truethat the petitioners cannot seek as a matter of fact that theirservices should be taken into account from the date of the initialappointment. However, in a case where similarly placed persons andpersons who have lesser rights than the petitioners have been givensuch a concession then a duty is imposed upon the respondents 1 and 2to see to it that justice will have to be rendered. They cannot adoptdifferent yardstick to different persons affecting their rights.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions willhave to be allowed.Direct Recruitees vis-a-vis the absorbed candidates:40.In so far as the absorbed teachers from the erstwhileAlagappa University is concerned, admittedly they have been placedbelow the other private respondents who have been given appointmentswith retrospective effect. They have not challenged the promotionallist by which the other private respondents shown in the impugnedlist as 15 to 43 have been placed above them. Their posts werecreated temporarily and their appointments were temporary. It is alsonot in dispute that at the time of their entry into the Governmentservice, the petitioners were in fact working as AssistantProfessors. Therefore, when those persons have been givenregularisation with retrospective effect, the petitioners cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ discriminated. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that thepetitioners are entitled to be placed over and above thoserespondents who have been regularised with retrospective effect fromtheir absorption.Element of Fairness:41.The question for consideration is as to whether the orderimpugned passed by the first respondent depicts an element offairness. This Court is concerned with the order impugned as towhether the same is arbitrary and unreasonable or not. Thediscretion by an authority should be based upon relevant materials.In other words an administrative discretion cannot be exercised for amere asking but should be based upon equity and good conscience. Anact done, which is in negation of equality and irrational, by anadministrative authority will have to be termed as arbitrary. Whensuch action is arbitrary, the same would be violative of Article 14of the Constitution of India. Considering the element of fairness ithas been held by the Honourable Apex Court in ASHA SHARMA vs.CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS [(2011) 10 SCC 86] as follows:"14.Action by the State, whetheradministrative or executive, has to be fair andin consonance with the statutory provisions andrules. Even if no rules are in force to governexecutive action still such action, especially ifit could potentially affect the rights of theparties, should be just, fair and transparent.Arbitrariness in State action, even where therules vest discretion in an authority, has to beimpermissible. The exercise of discretion, inline with principles of fairness and goodgovernance, is an implied obligation upon theauthorities, when vested with the powers to passorders of determinative nature. The standard offairness is also dependant upon certainty inState action, that is, the class of persons,subject to regulation by the Allotment Rules,must be able to reasonably anticipate the orderfor the action that the State is likely to takein a given situation. Arbitrariness anddiscrimination have inbuilt elements ofuncertainty as the decisions of the State wouldthen differ from person to person and fromsituation to situation, even if the determinativefactors of the situations in question wereidentical. This uncertainty must be avoided."Therefore, applying the ratio laid down therein and in the light ofthe discussion made above, this Court is of the view that on theprinciple of fairness, the order impugned cannot be sustained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.14580 of 201142.It is seen from the appointment orders issued to variouspersons appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Stateand Subordinate Services Rules in the Cadre of Assistant Professors,the Rule of Reservation has been followed at the very initial stage.The Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.336, Education Department,dated 08.03.1990 also would indicate that Rule of Reservation havebeen duly followed. The subsequent Government Order passed inG.O.Ms.No.154, Education Department, dated 12.02.1993 also wouldindicate that Rule of Reservation has been followed. The documentsfiled by the petitioners would clearly demonstrate that Rule ofReservation has been followed by adopting the communal roster. Thatis the reason why the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has notrecommended for following the said Rule of Reservation once over andagain which would amount to double reservation. The said mistakecommitted by the Government while passing the order inG.O.Ms.No.1840, Education Department, dated 16.12.1988 has beenrectified in the subsequent order passed in G.O.Ms.No.336, EducationDepartment, dated 18.03.1990. If the contention of the learned seniorCounsel Ms.Vaigai, is accepted then a person who has been appointedsubsequently as a junior will become a senior to the person appointedearlier in the very same Cadre when the appointment have been made byfollowing the communal rotation. There is nothing on record tosuggest that the Rule of Reservation has not been followed and on thecontrary there is sufficient materials to hold that the same has beenfollowed. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the GovernmentOrder passed in G.O.Ms.No.336, Education Department, dated18.03.1990. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed in W.P.No.14580 of2011 seeking for refixation of seniority based upon a Rule ofReservation is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same isdismissed.Decisions referred:43.Numerous decisions have been referred by the learnedcounsels appearing for both sides. Particularly the learned counselsappearing for the petitioners made reliance upon the judgmentrendered in G.P.DOVAL AND OTHERS vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OFU.P. AND OTHERS [AIR 1984 SCC 1527] which has been quoted withapproval in S.SUMNYAN AND OTHERS vs. LIMI NIRI AND OTHERS [(2010) 6SCC 791]. They also seek to distinguish the ratio laid down inK.MADALAIMUTHU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS [(2006) 6SCC 558] which has been followed in M.P.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS vs.A.KRISHNAN AND OTHERS [(2009) 6 SCC 428]. On the contrary the learnedcounsels appearing for the respondents made substantial reliance uponthe judgments to submit that a person appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules cannotseek to count his period of officiation prior to regularisation. Thelearned senior counsels have also made reliance upon the judgment ofthe Honourable Apex Court in STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER vs.M.J.SIDDIQUI AND OTHERS [AIR 1980 SC 1098]. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

44.As discussed above, the judgments referred by both sideswould show that a person appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of theTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and subsequentlyregularised cannot seek as a matter of right that the servicerendered by him in the capacity as a temporary employee will have tobe counted for the purpose of the seniority. There is no difficultyin appreciating the said position. However, the decisions also wouldshow that the services rendered in a temporary capacity can be takeninto account by the authority in a given case. Therefore while amatter of right it cannot be claimed by an employee that his servicesrendered as Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State andSubordinate Services Rules, appointee should be reckoned for thepurpose of seniority, equally the respondent cannot apply differentyardstick to different employees who are similarly placed or not in abetter position. In other words, the respondents cannot say that forone group of persons who are either placed like that of thepetitioners or worse off, a retrospective regularisation can be givenbut the same cannot be extended to the petitioners. There is noexpress bar for the respondents 1 and 2 from granting such a reliefto the petitioners when fairness requires the same. In other words,either the petitioners ought to have given the same benefits given tothe private respondents or they ought not to have given such benefitsoverlooking the case of the petitioners affecting them adversely.When a power is available with the authority the same has to beapplied uniformly. The respondents cannot apply the rules in favourof one group whose rights are subject to the rights of the othergroup. 45.As discussed above, the rules provide for such a power tobe exercised by the respondents. The first respondent has clearlymisconstrued the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court inK.MADALAIMUTHU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS [(2006) 6SCC 558]. That was a case which arose between direct recruitees whohave been appointed by conducting examination by the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission as against the recruitees appointed underRule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate ServicesRules. Therefore, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold thatas against the persons who has come through the proper channel thepersons who were selected without the due process cannot seekseniority. The facts discussed above in this case are totallydifferent. On the contrary, there is no bar for taking intoconsideration of the continuous officiation of an employee in atemporary capacity in a given case. Therefore, this Court is of theview that the first respondent ought to have exercised his discretionin favour of the petitioners while extending the said benefits to therespondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

46.It is trite law that a judgment of a Court of law shallnot be construed like a statute or an edict. A decision will have tobe applied by taking into consideration of the facts andcircumstances of each case. Therefore, the decisions relied upon willhave to be seen in the context of the factual scenario. Thepetitioners do not seek any specific relief that the servicesrendered by them prior to the regularisation will have to be takeninto consideration for the purpose of Inter-Se-Seniority. Theirspecific grievance is that they cannot be discriminated as againstthe private respondents. In other words, according to thepetitioners, a different yardstick cannot be applied to the privaterespondents as against the petitioners who got a better right thanthem. As discussed above, the facts would reveal that the petitionersare better placed having been working as Assistant Professors priorto the entry of private respondents who have been arrayed as 15onwards in the impugned list.47.In this context now let us see the judgment relied uponby both sides in S.SUMNYAN AND OTHERS vs. LIMI NIRI AND OTHERS[(2010) 6 SCC 791], where the Honourable Apex Court after taking noteof the judgment rendered in G.P.DOVAL AND OTHERS vs. CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND OTHERS [AIR 1984 SCC 1527] has held in thefollowing terms:"44.We may here also appropriately refer toanother decision of this Court in the case ofG.P.Doval vs. Govt. OF U.P. reported in [1984 4SCC 329], wherein this Court held thatregularization of the services of a person, whoseinitial appointment although not in accordancewith the prescribed procedure but later onapproved by an authority having power andjurisdiction to do so would always relate back tothe dates of their initial appointment. Para 13is reproduced hereinbelow:(SCC p.341)"13. ... If the first appointment is made bynot following the prescribed procedure but lateron the appointee is approved making hisappointment regular, it is obvious commonsensethat in the absence of a contrary rule, theapproval which means confirmation by theauthority which had the authority, power andjurisdiction to make appointment or recommend forappointment, will relate back to the date onwhich first appointment is made and the entireservice will have to be computed in reckoning theseniority according to the length of continuousofficiation. That has not been done in this case." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

45. We may also usefully refer to thejudgment of this Court in Direct Recruit Class IIEngineering Officers' Assn. v. State ofMaharashtra reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715, whichreads as follows: (SCC pp.744-45, para 47). "47.To sum up, we hold that:(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a postaccording to rule, his seniority has to becounted from the date of his appointment and notaccording to the date of his confirmation."46. The other aspect of the matter which isto be noted is that when the respondents wereappointed to the service as Assistant Engineerson the recommendation of the APPSC, the saidappointment was on probation for a period of twoyears. Some of the appellants had successfullycompleted their probation period on 20.07.1989,after their cases had been taken up forregularization by the APPSC. Therefore, whenconsidered from any angle there is nojustification for denial of the benefit ofseniority to the appellants from the date oftheir initial appointment which is also in tunewith the legal principles laid down by this Courtas referred to hereinbefore and in that view ofthe matter the aforesaid decision which is reliedupon by the counsel appearing for the respondentsis held to be not applicable to the facts andcircumstances of the present case.47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, weset aside the orders passed by the Single Judgeas well as by the Division Bench of the HighCourt. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed byrespondent no. 1 in the High Court would standdismissed."48.The Honourable Apex Court had also distinguished thedecision rendered in K.MADALAIMUTHU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU & OTHERS [(2006) 6 SCC 558]. Hence, this Court is of the viewthat the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court is applicableto the case on hand. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

49.In SURAJ PARKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF J&k ANDOTHERS [(2000) 7 SCC 561], while dealing with the regularisation ofad hoc promotees as against the persons who have been working thereinit has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in the following manner:"62This principle is supported by ampleauthority. Procedural inaction towards promotees,it has been held, can be "rectified". This isexplained in the three Judge Bench case in Stateof West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey [(1993) 3 SCC371] . In that Judgment propositions A and B laiddown in Direct Recruit Case were explained byVerma, J. (as he then was). It was pointed outthat proposition A where it was held that the adhoc service would not count was one where thesame was stop gap (i.e. and remained as such). Inproposition B it was said that ad hoc servicecould count in certain situations such as wherethere was only a 'procedural' irregularity inmaking appointments according to Rules. In such asituation, the irregularity can be subsequently'rectified'. In such a case such ad hoc/stopgapor temporary service could be counted. Again inSyed Khalid Rizvi 's case, it was held byRamaswamy, J. speaking for the three Judge Benchthat proposition A and B in Direct Recruit casehad to be read with para 13 therein. Similarly,in I.K.Sukhija v. Union of India [(1997) 6 SCC406], Nanavati, J. explained propositions A and Bby reference to Aghore Nath Dey's case referredto above.65.Again, in respect of the same Rule 23(a)of the Andhra Pradesh Rules, this Court observedin State of A.P. v. K.S. Muralidhar [(1992) 2 SCC241] that there can be no objection under thesaid rule for retrospective regularisation.66.Similar is the position in M. Janardhan v.State of AP [1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 298]. Thereadverting to Rule 37(e) of the A.P. Rules whichalso permitted regular promotion from an'anterior date', (like Rule 23 here) it was heldthat the said retrospective promotions wererightly upheld by the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

69.Thus, there is overwhelming authority ofthis Court to hold that adhoc, stop gap servicecould be regularised from an anterior date afterconsulting the Service Commission from the dateof vacancy in promotee quota, after consideringfitness, eligibility, suitability and ACRs.Therefore, the adhoc/stop gap service rendered bypromotees beyond six months and without theconsent of the Public Service Commission as perRegulation 4(d)(ii) cannot be treated as non-est.It can be regularised later after consulting theCommission in respect of posts in the promotionquota and subject to eligibility and suitabilitybased on ACRs. etc. Only the period renderedoutside quota or the period rendered within quotawhen the promotee was not eligible or found fithas to be excluded."Therefore, the above said decisions would show that there is no barfor taking into consideration of the services rendered by an ad hocemployee as against those similarly placed or others who have gotinferior rights.50.In SYED KHALID RIZVI AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA ANDOTHERS [1993 I LLJ 887(SC)], the Honourable Apex Court was pleased tohold that unless a promotee officer is appointed in accordance withthe rule in a substantive vacancy it is not become of the service.Therefore, the said judgment in fact supports the case of thepetitioners as they are not promotees. Similarly in P.SRINIVAS vs.M.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS [(2004) 2 SCC 459], the same ratiohas been reiterated after taking into consideration of the decisionmade by the Constitutional Bench in DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS IIENGINEERING OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS[(1990) 2 SCC 715]. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Courtwould in fact disentitle the private respondents from counting theirservice in the promoted posts from the date of their entry astemporary officers.51.The decision rendered in P.PERUMAL vs. A.V.SURESHBABU ANDOTHERS [(2007) 4 MLJ 160] is also between the promotees and thedirect recruitees.52.As discussed above, in K.MADALAIMUTHU AND ANOTHER vs.STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS [(2006) 6 SCC 558] which was the basisof the order impugned, the Honourable Apex Court was dealing with thecase of Inter-Se-Seniority between the temporary appointee and thoseappointed on a regular basis by following the selection process.Therefore, in that context by construing Rule 23(a) and Rule 10 (a)(i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Honourable Apex Court has held that the promotees cannot seek asa matter of right to count their services prior to regularisation.53.Similarly, in M.P.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS vs. A.KRISHNANAND OTHERS [(2009) 6 SCC 428], the Honourable Apex Court was onceagain dealing with the ad hoc appointees vis-a-vis candidateappointment after proper competitive examination. As discussed above,the said decision would be applicable only to those persons who arealready in service in accordance with law. In other words, thedecision can be applied such of those officers i.e. Serial No.1 to 14in the impugned seniority list who have been appointed initially on aregular basis.54.Reliance has also been placed by the learned counselsappearing for the respondents over the decision rendered inCH.NARAYANA RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2011 (2) LLN 349]. Thefacts involved in the said case are totally different. Therespondents therein had passed the special qualifying test ascontemplated under the rules and thereafter his seniority has beenfixed. Therefore, there is no difficulty in once again reiteratingthe settled position of law as held by the constitutional Bench inDIRECT RECRUIT CLASS II ENGINEERING OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION vs. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [(1990) 2 SCC 715] that an ad hoc appointeecannot claim seniority over the appointee who has been appointed inaccordance with rules. However, the factual situation in the case athand is totally different. The private respondents, cannot claim thatthey have been appointed in accordance with rules. Hence, this Courtis of the view that the decision rendered by the Honourable ApexCourt as relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for therespondents would not enure to their benefits.55.The Honourable Apex Court in SK.ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERSvs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS [(2008) 1 SCC 722] has heldin the following manner:"16.In State of Bihar v. Akhouri SachindraNath [1991 Supp (1) SCC 334] this Court held :(SCC p.342, para 12)"12. ... It is well settled that no personcan be promoted with retrospective effect from adate when he was not born in the cadre so as toadversely affect others. It is well settled byseveral decisions of this Court that amongstmembers of the same grade seniority is reckonedfrom the date of their initial entry into theservice."20.However, in exercise of our discretionaryjurisdiction under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, we direct that despitethis order if any monetary benefit has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conferred upon the private respondents, the samemay not be recovered."Therefore in the light of the pronouncements, this Court is of theview that the Writ Petitions are entitled to succeed.56.In the result, the Writ Petitions filed in W.P.No.14485,15159, 15364 of 2011 are allowed and consequently, the impugnedorders are set aside in so far as the Serial No.15 onwards in theimpugned seniority list. While setting aside the orders impugned, thefollowing directions are issued:(i)The first respondent is directed to redraw the seniority listby taking into consideration of the date of initial appointmentof the petitioners and the private respondents who are arrayedfrom Serial No.15 onwards in the impugned seniority list.(iii)In so far as the persons shown in the impugned seniority listfrom 1 to 14 are concerned, their seniority list fixed is upheldas they are admittedly direct recruitees appointed throughproper process.57.The Writ Petition filed in W.P.No.19800 of 2011 isallowed, with the directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to fix theseniority by taking into consideration of date of initial appointment.58.The Writ Petition filed in W.P.No.14580 of 2011 is herebydismissed, as the respondents 1 and 2 have correctly followed theroster in adopting the Rule of Reservation. The first respondent is directed to complete the entire process ofredrawing the list, within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Principal Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Higher Education (F2) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.Director of Collegiate Education Directorate of Collegiate Education DPI Compound College Road Chennai – 600 006.1 cc To M/s.Row & Reddy, Advocate Sr 49791 cc To M/s.C.S.Associates, Advocate Sr 1 cc To Mr.L.Muthukumar, Advocate Sr 46161 cc To Mr.C.Uma, Advocate Sr 47151 cc To Mr.Balan Haridas, Advocate Sr 49191 cc To Mr.D.Nagasaila, Advocate Sr 48042 cc To Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate Sr 4882W.P. NOS.14485, 15159, 14580,15364 & 19800 OF 2011tam[co]gp/27.1