Madras High Court
K Palani vs The Secretary on 19 April, 2018
2026:MHC:1054
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026
DELIVERED ON : 13.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015, 15623 of 2019, 15973 of 2018, 16924 of 2019,
14887 of 2019 and 1857 of 2020, 22881/2023,
26309/2018 and 26316 /2018
And
WMP.Nos.28559 of 2025, 22357/2023, 22358/2023, 22359/2023, 28558/2015,
19210/2016, 31293/2016, 37948/2016, 2166/2020, 2168/2020, 17597/2021,
14872/2019, 18240/2019, 28244/2019, 1667/2020, 17598/2021, 8253/2020,
15516/2019, 18243/2019, 18400/2019, 18999/2018, 19000/2018, 6895/2020,
16502/2019, 16506/2019, 25988/2019, 14062/2019, 1215/2019, 13751/2019
and 1218/2019
W.P.No. 29670 of 2015
1. K Palani
2. G.Ramu
3. U.Ramaraj
4. J.Kalidoss
5. Mrs.S.Vetriselvi
6. Mrs.M.Manimegalai
7. D.Gnanavel
8. E.Venkatesan
9. R.Rajkumar
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
10. S. Prema
11. A.Sanbegaraman
12. S.Myviliselvi
13. O.Janakiram
14. K.Chenthil Kumaran
15. P.Ramakrishnan
16. R.Jaisankar ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Labour & Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S., Mount Road,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018
3. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
4. N. Vasuki
5.K.P. Indhiya
6.C.Manjalnathan
7.B.Kotteeswari
(R4 to R7 are impleaded vide order of this
Court dated 19.04.2018)
8.D.Thamarai Manalan
9.G.Gnanasambantham
10.K.Ravi
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
11. S. Sudha
(R8 to R11 are impleaded vide order of
this Court dated 19.04.2018) ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the
records of the Memorandum dated 19.11.2015 in E2/34124/2015 by the 2nd
respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the Respondents to
fix the inter-se-seniority and draw a Seniority List to the cadre of Labour
Officer in accordance with Rule 35(aa) read with Rule 2(1) of State &
Subordinate Service Rules for the post of Labour Officer and pass such further
or other orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and
thus render justice (PRAYER AMENDED AS PER ORDER
DATED:27/06/2016 )
For Petitioners : Mr.Karthik Rajan
For Mr. K.J. Parthasarathay
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
Asst. by
Mrs. S. Anitha, Spl.GP – R1 to R3
Mr.N.Subramaniayn
For Mr. G. Mutharasu – R4, R6 and R7
Mr. V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate
For Mr. N. Ramakrishnan
M/s. ARK Law Associates – R5
Mr. V.Sundar Raman – R8 to R11
W.P.No. 15623 of 2019
B. Kotteeswari, .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour & Employment Department,
Fort St. Geroge, Chennai-600 009.
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
2. The Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S. Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
3. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600 002.
4. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
5. N. K. Dhanabalan,
6. G. Ramu,
7. U. Ramaraj,
8. K. Palani,
9.J. Kalidoss
10.A. Valarmathi
11.S.Vetriselvi
12.M.Manimegalai
13.I.Kannagi
14.S.Rajendran (Since Retired)
15.D.Gnanavel
16.E.Venkatesan
17.R.Rajkumar
18.S. Prema
19.A. Sanbegaraman
20. S.Myviliselvi
21. O.Janakiram
22. K.Chenthil Kumaran
23. P.Ramakrishnan
24.D.Lakshminarayanan
25.R.Jaisankar
26.P.Shobana
27.K.Thiruvalluvan
28. S.Ponnuswamy
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
29.T.Tamilarasi
30. M. Shanthi
31.D.Vimalathanan
..Respondents
(R28 to R30 impleaded vide order of this Court dated 08.07.2019
and R31 impleaded vide order of this Court dated 29.07.2021)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the
records Pertaining to the impugned G.O.(Ms)No.38 of Labour and Employment
(El) Department, dated 09.04.2019, issued by the 1ª respondent and quash the
same and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to revise the impugned
seniority list of the Labour Officers by fixing the seniority of the 15 Labour
Officers including the petitioner, placed at Sl.Nos.189 to 203 of the impugned
seniority list who were appointed by direct recruitment through Tamilnadu
Public Service Commission to fill up vacancies for the year 2010-2011, above
the Labour officers, placed at Sl.Nos. 158 to 188 of the impugned seniority list
who were appointed by recruitment by transfer in excess of their quota for the
year 2011-2012, and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioners : Mr. N. Subramaniyan
For Mr. G. Mutharasu
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
For Mrs. S. Anitha, Spl.GP – R1, R2 & R4
Mr. B. Vijay, Standing Counsel – R3
Mr. V.Vijayshankar – R5 to R13, R15 to R23 and
R25 to R27.
Mr. R. Syed Mustafa – R28 to R31
(Respondent Nos. 4,14 and 24 – Batta no filed.)
W.P.No. 15973 of 2018
1 D.Thamaraimanalan
2.G.Gnanasambanthan
3.S.sudha
4.J.Ravi Jeyaram ..Petitioners
Vs.
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour & Employment Department,
Fort St. Geroge, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S. Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
3. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600 002.
4.N.K. Dhanabalan
5.G. Ramu
6. U. Ramaraj
7. K. Palani
8.J.Kalidoss
9.A. Valarmathi
10.S.Vetriselvi
11.M.Manimegalai
12.L.Kannagi
13.S.Rajendran (Since Retired)
14.D.Gnanavel
15.E.Venkatesan
16.R.Rajkumar
17.S. Prema
18.A. Sanbegaraman
19. S.Myviliselvi
20. O.Janakiram
21. K.Chenthil Kumaran
22. P.Ramakrishnan
23.D.Lakshminarayanan
24.R.Jaisankar
25.P.Shobana ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned G.O. (Ms)No.48 of Labour and Employment
Department, dated 02 04 2012, issued by the 1st Respondent, quash the same
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to regulate the apportionment
of vacancies for the post of Labour Officers from the year 2007-2008, 2008-
2009, 2009-2010 2010-2011 and 2011-12 among the direct recruitment and
recruitment by transfer strictly following the special rules for Labour Officers
and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.Sundar Raman
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
For Mrs. S. Anitha, Spl.GP – R1& R2
Mr. B. Vijay, Standing Counsel – R3
Mr. R. Syed Mustafa – R4 to R8, R10, 11, 14, 21
and 24.
Mr.K.J. Parthasarathy – R15 to 20, 22 & 23
(Respondent Nos. 9, 12 and 13 – No appearance.)
W.P.No. 16924 of 2019
1. D. Thamaraimanalan,
2. G. Gnanasambanthan,
3. S. Sudha,
4. J. Ravi Jeyaram, .. Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour & Employment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S. Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
3. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
4. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600 002.
5. P. Shobana, ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for
records relating to the order of the 1st respondent made in G.O.(Ms) No.38 of
Labour and Employment Department, dated 09.04.2019, to quash the same and
to consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regulate the apportionment of
vacancies for the post of Labour Officers (now Assistant Commissioner of
Labour) from the year 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012 among the Direct Recruitment and Recruitment by Transfer by strictly
following the Special Rules for Labour Officers and to re-fix the seniority and
to pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sundar Raman
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
For Mrs. S. Anitha, Spl.GP – R1 to R3
Mr. B. Vijay, Standing Counsel – R4
(Respondent No. 5 – Batta not filed.)
W.P.No. 14887 of 2019
S.P. Shanthi ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour & Employment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
2. The Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S. Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
3. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
4. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600 002.
5.N.K.Dhanabalan
6. G. Ramu,
7. U. Ramaraj,
8. K. Palani,
9.J. Kalidoss
10.A. Valarmathi
11.S.Vetriselvi
12.M.Manimegalai
13.I.Kannagi
14.S.Rajendran (Since Retired)
15.D.Gnanavel
16.E.Venkatesan
17.R.Rajkumar
18.S. Prema
19.A. Sanbegaraman
20. S.Myviliselvi
21. O.Janakiram
22. K.Chenthil Kumaran
23. P.Ramakrishnan
24.D.Lakshminarayanan
25.R.Jaisankar
26.P.Shobana
27.K.Thiruvalluvan
28. S.Ponnuswamy
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
29.T.Tamilarasi
30. M. Shanthi
32.D.Vimalathanan ..Respondents
(R28 to R30 impleaded vide order of this Court dated 03.07.2019
and R31 impleaded vide order of this Court dated 29.07.2021)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for
the records on the file of the first respondent in relation to the impugned order
in G.O.Ms.No. 38 Labour and Employment (E-1) Department dated 9.4.2019,
quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to fix the quota
between direct recruits and promotees for vacancies each year in the ratio of 1:2
as per Explanation 1 to Rule 2 and Tamil Nadu Labour Service Rules and
consequently prepare the final seniority list by following the Rota-Quota rule
prescribed in Explanation 1 to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Labour Service Rules
and to pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioners : Mrs. Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Advocate
For M/s. S. Suneetha
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
For Mrs. S. Anitha, Spl.GP – R1 to R3
Mr. B. Vijay, Standing Counsel – R4
Mr. V.Vijayshankar – R5 to R13, R15 to R27
Mr. R. Syed Mustafa – R28 to R31
(Respondent No. 14 – No Appearance.)
W.P.No. 1857 of 2020
1.D.Balathandautham
2.T.Murugesan
3.P.Lenin
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
4.C.Manjalthanan
5.M.Sridhar ..Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour & Employment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S. Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
3. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
4. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600009.
5.P.Munian
6.K.M.C. Lingam
7.G.Geetha
8.M.M.Kamalakannan
9. A.Mohamed Abdul Kader Subair
10.S.Sudalairaj
11.V.G.Rameshkumar ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned orders in 1) G.O (3D) No.8, Labour and
Employment (E1) dated 03-04-2008, (ii) G.O. (Ms) No.77, Labour and
Employment (E1) dated 25-06-2009, (iii) G.O (Ms) No.79, Labour and
Employment (E1) dated 28-04-2010 and (iv) G.O. (Ms) No.280, Labour and
Employment (E1) dated 28-12-2010 issued by the 1st Respondent, and to quash
the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regulate the
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
apportionment of vacancies for the post of Labour Officers (Now redesignated
as Assistant Commissioner of Labour) from the year 2007-2008, 2008-2009,
2009-2010, and 2010-2011 among the direct recruitment and recruitment by
transfer strictly following the Special Rules for Labour Officers taking into
consideration of the fact that the Labour Officers recruited by transfer were
temporarily promoted in violation of the ratio of exciting vacancies at the
relevant point of time from the year 2007 to 2011 and fix the petitioners in
appropriate place with all service and monetary benefits within a stipulated time
and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, Senior Advocate
For Mr.Alihasan
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
For M/s. M.Keerthika, GA – R1, R2
and R4
Mr. B. Vijay, Standing Counsel – R3
Mr. R. Syed Mustafa – R6 to R11
(Respondent No. 5 – No Appearance.)
W.P.No.22881 of 2023
1.D.Balathandautham
2.T.Murugesan
3.P.Lenin
4.C.Manjalthanan
5.M.Sridhar ..Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Labour & Employment Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
2. The Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S. Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
3.K.M.C. Lingam
4.G.Geetha
5.M.M.Kamalakannan
6. A.Mohamed Abdul Kader Subair
7.S.Sudalairaj
8.V.G.Rameshkumar ..Respon
dents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide i)
Memorandum of the Commissioner of Labour in E3/6134/2022 dated
20.07.2023 and ii). Memorandum of the Commissioner of Labour in
E3/9611/2023 dated 21.07.2023 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially direct the respondents 1 and 2 to fix the seniority list of Direct
Recruitment Candidates and Promotion Candidates of Assistant Commissioner
of Labour under quota rota rule and in terms of Section 20-B of Special Rules
for Tamil Nadu Labour Service and to promote the petitioners in appropriate
place and to pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, Senior Advocate
For Mr.Alihasan
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
For M/s. M.Keerthika, GA – R1, and R2
Mr. R. Syed Mustafa – R3 to R7
R8 - Party-in-Person
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
W.P.No. 26309 of 2018
S.P. Shanthi ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Labour & Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S., Mount Road,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018
3. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
4. Abdul Azeez
5. U. Ramaraj
6.S.Vetriselvi
7. N.K. Dhanapalan
(R7 impleaded vide order of this Court dated 04.01.2019)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the
records of the second respondent herein in the proceedings No. E3/43422/2016
dated 17.09.2018 so far as inclusion of the names of the private respondents,
quash the same with a consequential direction directing the respondents to draw
the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Labour for the
year 2016 by including the name of the petitioner without insisting upon the
service qualification as per Rule 2 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Labour
Services and consequentially promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy
Commissioner of Labour with all attendant benefits and to pass such further or
other orders.
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mrs. Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Advocate
For M/s. S. Suneetha
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
For M/s. M.Keerthika, GA – R1 to R3
Mr. R. Syed Mustafa – R5 & R6
Respondent Nos. 4 & 7 – No appearance)
W.P.No. 26316 of 2018
K. Balamurugan
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Labour & Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S., Mount Road,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018
3. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
4. Abdul Azeez
5. U. Ramaraj
6.S.Vetriselvi
7. N.K. Dhanapalan
(R7 impleaded vide order of this Court dated 04.01.2019)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus,calling for the
records of the second respondent herein in the proceedings No.E3/43422/2016
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
dated 17.09.2018 so far as inclusion of the names of the private respondents,
quash the same with a consequential direction directing the respondents to draw
the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Labour for the
year 2016 by including the name of the petitioner without insisting upon the
service qualification as per Rule 2 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Labour
Services and consequentially promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy
Commissioner of Labour with all attendant service benefits and to pass such
further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mrs. Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Advocate
For M/s. S. Suneetha
For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan, AAG
For M/s. M.Keerthika, GA – R1 to R3
Mr. K.J. Parthasarathy – R5 & R6.
Respondent Nos. 4 & 7 – No appearance)
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are interconnected
and arise out of the same subject matter, they are taken up together and disposed
of by way of this common order.
W.P. No. 29670 of 2015
2. This writ petition has been filed by the transferees challenging the
memorandum dated 19.11.2015 issued by the Commissioner of Labour,
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
whereby the representations submitted by the transferees seeking determination,
fixation, and communication of their inter se seniority in the cadre of Labour
Officers were rejected. The petitioners contend that such fixation of seniority
ought to have been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.
W.P. Nos. 15623 of 2019, 15973 of 2018, 16929 of 2019, 14887 of 2019 and
1857 of 2020, 22881/2023, 26309/2018 and 26316 /2018
3. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are direct recruits appointed to
the post of Labour Officer. They challenge the validity and correctness of G.O.
(Ms) No. 38 dated 09.11.2019, whereby the transferees involved in these
proceedings were placed above the direct recruits in the seniority list pertaining
to the cadre of Labour Officers. The direct recruits were appointed in December
2012 against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2010–2011, whereas the
transferees were appointed in April 2012 against the vacancies pertaining to the
year 2011–2012.
4. Background of W.P. No. 29670 of 2015
4.1. W.P. No. 29670 of 2015 was originally filed seeking issuance of a
writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to determine and fix the
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
inter se seniority and to draw up a seniority list for the cadre of Labour Officers
in accordance with Rule 35(a)(i) read with Rule 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu State
and Subordinate Service Rules. This court vide interim order dated 04.07.2018
directed the official respondents to prepare a seniority list for the post of
Labour Officers (now redesignated as Assistant Commissioners of Labour)
from the year 1997–1998, after inviting objections and suggestions from the
concerned individuals through the Commissioner of Labour,.
4.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge, the petitioners in W.P. No. 29670 of 2015 preferred W.A. No.
1715 of 2018 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench
disposed of the said writ appeal with a direction to the learned Single Judge to
work out the inter se seniority between the parties after hearing all the affected
parties and considering the various grievances raised, including those of the
direct recruits.
4.3. Pursuant to the above directions, the first respondent examined the
matter in detail after considering the objections and suggestions submitted by
the concerned parties. Consequently, the earlier guidelines issued in G.O. 4(D)
No. 30 dated 23.08.1996 were set aside. Thereafter, a final inter se seniority list
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
for the cadre of Assistant Commissioners of Labour (formerly Labour Officers)
was prepared between the direct recruits and the transferees from the year 1998
onwards, in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants’ Conditions of Service Act, 2016 (corresponding to the
erstwhile Rule 35(aa ) of the General Rules). In the said seniority list, the
transferees were placed above the direct recruits. Aggrieved , the direct recruits
are before this court.
5. Learned counsels appearing for the direct recruits, submitted that the
Explanation to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service, which
governs appointments to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
specifically provides that the first vacancy shall be filled by direct recruitment
and the next two vacancies shall be filled by recruitment by transfer from the
category of Deputy Inspector of Labour. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel, invoking sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Government
Servants’ Conditions of Service Act, 2016 for the purpose of fixing inter se
seniority lacks statutory authority.
5.1. The learned counsel further submitted that, as per the Explanation to
the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service, vacancies to the post of
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
Assistant Commissioner of Labour are required to be filled strictly in
accordance with the prescribed ratio between direct recruitment and recruitment
by transfer. However, in the present case, the transferees were promoted by
adopting a cadre-wise quota instead of following the vacancy-based ratio
contemplated under the Special Rules. Consequently, the appointment of the
transferees by way of promotion/recruitment by transfer is contrary to the said
Explanation and results in their appointments being in excess of the quota
earmarked for transferees, thereby encroaching upon the quota reserved for
direct recruits.
5.2. It was therefore contended that when the very promotion of the
transferees is contrary to the governing rules, such transferees, though appointed
earlier in point of time, cannot claim seniority over the direct recruits whose
appointments were made strictly in accordance with the rules governing
appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour.
5.3. The learned counsel further submitted that the Government had
consistently followed a vacancy-wise quota for filling the posts of Deputy
Inspector of Labour, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, in O.A. Nos.1210 to 1225 of 1992.
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
Pursuant to the said decision, G.O. 4(D) No.30 dated 23.08.1996 was issued
incorporating the principles enunciated by the Tribunal.
5.4. However, contrary to the Explanation to rule 2 the Special Rules for
the Tamil Nadu Labour Service, the principles laid down by the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, and the Government Order issued adopting those
principles, the first respondent has passed the impugned order placing the
transferees above the direct recruits in the seniority list. According to the
learned counsel, such action is arbitrary, contrary to the governing service rules,
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. In support of their submissions, they relied upon the legal principles
established by the courts in the following judgments:…
i. Union of India and Others Vs. S.D.Gupta and Others [(1996) 8 SCC
14]
ii. All India Federation of Central Excise Vs. Union of India & Others
[(1999) 3 SCC 384]
iii. Suraj Praksh Gupta and others Vs. State of J & K and Others [(2000)
7 SCC 561],
iv. Uttranchal Forest Rangers Association Vs.State of U.P and Others
[(2006) 10 SCC 346
v. Arvinder Singh Bains Vs. State of Punjab and Others [(2006) 6 SCC
673]
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
vi. AFHQ/ISOs SOs (DP) Association and Others VS. Union of India
and Others [(2008) 3 SCC 331],
vii. R.K. Mobisana Singh Vs. KH. Temba Singh and Others [(2008) 1
SCC 747]
viii. Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another Vs. State of Assam and
Others [(2013) 2 SCC 516),
7.1. In response, Mr.R. Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State, submitted that the total sanctioned strength in
the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Labour is 99 posts. As per the ratio
prescribed in the Explanation to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour
Service, 33 posts are required to be filled by direct recruitment and the
remaining posts by recruitment by transfer.
7.2. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that for
the year 2011–2012, taking into account 13 vacancies that arose due to the
retirement of direct recruits and 9 promotional vacancies, the total estimate of
vacancies was approved as 22. Accordingly, 22 Deputy Inspectors of Labour
were promoted and appointed as Assistant Commissioners of Labour on
02.04.2012.
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
7.3. It was further submitted that the number of direct recruits holding the
post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour at that point of time was 18. The
estimate of vacancies for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner of
Labour by direct recruitment for the years 2007–2008 to 2010–2011 was
approved as 15. After applying the ratio prescribed under Explanation (1) to
Rule 2 of the Special Rules, 14 candidates were appointed to the cadre of
Assistant Commissioner of Labour by direct recruitment on 27.01.2012.
7.4. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, by
applying Explanation (1) under Rule 2 of the Special Rules, the vacancies were
filled on the basis of a cadre-wise quota, that is, by maintaining the prescribed
fixed percentage of posts in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Labour
between direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer.
8.1. Learned counsel appearing for the transferees, submitted that the
principles laid down by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, are
merely directory in nature and not mandatory. According to the learned counsel,
those principles were issued only as a temporary arrangement and cannot
override the statutory provisions governing the service.
23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
8.2 The learned counsel further submitted that the said principles are
contrary to the Explanation to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu
Labour Service as well as Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants’ Conditions of Service Act, 2016. It was therefore
contended that the ratio of 1:2 prescribed for appointment to the post of
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, with respect to the vacancies allocated
between direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer, has been duly followed.
Consequently, the inter se seniority has been fixed in accordance with Sub-
section (2) of Section 40 of the Act, 2016. According to the learned counsel, the
promotion of the transferees was made strictly in conformity with the statutory
rules.
8.3. The learned counsel for the transferees further submitted that Section
47(1) of the Act, 2016 provides for filling vacancies by promotion from the
lower category otherwise than in accordance with the normal provisions of the
Act, in the interest of public service, in situations involving emergency or where
undue delay would occur in making such promotions. In support of the above
submissions, the learned counsel relied upon various legal principles laid down
by the Courts in the following judgments:
24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batchi. Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’s Association Vs. State of
Mharastra [(1990) 2 SCC 715]
ii. Jagdish CH. Patnaik and Others VS. State of Orissa [(1998) 4 SCC
456]iii. BS. Mathur Vs. Union of India [(2008) 10 SCC 271]
9.1 Mr. Ragavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the direct
recruits, who are the private respondents in W.P. No. 29670 of 2015, submitted
that the contention of the State Government that it has adopted the principle of
“men in position,” thereby maintaining the ratio of 1:2 in the total sanctioned
strength of 99 posts (i.e., 33 posts for direct recruits and 66 posts for
transferees/promotees), is contrary to the statutory rules.
9.2 According to the learned Senior Counsel, such an approach is not
only violative of the relevant statutory provisions but also results in conferring
undue advantage upon one category of employees, namely the
promotees/transferees, under the guise of maintaining the prescribed ratio. This,
according to him, amounts to permitting an illegality coupled with irregularity
and is in clear violation of the quota-rota principle governing appointments to
the cadre. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the said contention
25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
advanced by the State Government has already been held to be untenable by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 7045 of 2016.
10. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and upon perusing the materials placed on record, the
central issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as follows:
Whether the appointments to the post of Assistant Commissioner of
Labour, to be made by way of direct recruitment and recruitment by
transfer in the ratio of 1:2, ought to be implemented on the basis of a
cadre-wise quota or a vacancy-wise quota.
11. Before examining the above issue, it would be appropriate to refer to
the relevant statutory provisions governing appointment to the post of Assistant
Commissioner of Labour and the fixation of inter se seniority between direct
recruits and transferees in the said cadre.
11.1 Rule 2 of the Special Rules deals with appointment and
qualifications for appointment among various posts in the Labour Department
and prescribes qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant
Commissioner of Labour by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer.
26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
Explanation to Rule 2 of the Special Rules reads as follows;
Explanation: Not withstanding anything contained in rule 6
of the General rules for the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services, out of every three vacancies in the
category of Assistant Commissioner of Labour including
Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Plantation), the first
vacancy shall be filled by direct recruitment and the next two
vacancies shall be filled up by recruitment by transfer from
the category of Deputy Inspectors of Labour”
11.2. A careful reading of the Explanation to Rule 2 of the Special Rules
for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service makes it clear that appointments to the cadre
of Assistant Commissioner of Labour are to be made in a specific sequence. The
rule stipulates that out of every three vacancies in the cadre, the first vacancy
shall be filled by direct recruitment and the next two vacancies shall be filled by
recruitment by transfer from the category of Deputy Inspector of Labour. Thus,
the scheme contemplated under the Special Rules is vacancy-based and not
cadre-based.
11.3. In other words, appointments by way of direct recruitment and
recruitment by transfer are to be made with reference to the vacancies that arise
in the cadre as on the crucial date, and not with reference to maintaining a fixed
ratio of 1:2 in the total sanctioned strength of 99 posts in the cadre of Assistant
27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
Commissioner of Labour. Therefore, vacancies arising due to the retirement of
direct recruits or those arising due to the retirement of transferees cannot be
treated separately for the purpose of maintaining the ratio in the total cadre
strength.
11.4. The Special Rules do not contain any provision for determining the
inter se seniority between direct recruits and transferees in the cadre of Assistant
Commissioner of Labour. Therefore, the seniority has to be determined by
applying the General Rules, particularly Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants’ Conditions of Service Act, 2016.
11.5. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Government
Servants’ Conditions of Service Act, 2016 provides that where a service, class,
category, or grade is filled by more than one method of recruitment, the
seniority of a person appointed to such service or category shall be determined
with reference to the date on which he is appointed to that particular category or
grade. In other words, the provision contemplates that the person who is
appointed earlier to a particular category or grade shall rank senior to a person
who is appointed subsequently to the same category or grade.
28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- direct recruits do
not dispute the interpretation or applicability of Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of
the Act. However, their contention is that the very appointment of the
transferees by way of recruitment by transfer is illegal, as the appointments
were made without adhering to the quota–rota principle prescribed under the
Explanation to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service.
The petitioners therefore contend that when the initial appointment itself is not
in conformity with the governing rules, the benefit of seniority under Section
40(2) of the Act cannot be extended to such appointees so as to place them
above the direct recruits whose appointments were made strictly in accordance
with the applicable rules.
13. In response to the above contentions, the State has filed an additional
counter-affidavit setting out the details of the vacancies allocated for
appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour by way of direct
recruitment and by promotion/recruitment by transfer for the period from the
year 2006–2007 to 2011–2012. The said details have been furnished in the form
of a tabular statement, which is extracted below.
29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
Year No. of G.O In which No. of G.O in
vacancies appointment vacancies which
allotted for orders issued allotted for appointment
Direct Promotees orders
Recruitment issued
2006-2007 6 G.O. (4D) No. Nil G.O (D) No.
7, Labour and 123, Labour
(Letter (D) No. Employment (Letter (D) No. and
418/L&E (E1), Department, dt: 852, L & E, dt: Employment
dt: 05.06.2007) 05.12.2008 05.12.2006 Department,
dt:
03.04.2008
2007 - 2008 15 G.O. (4D) No. 12 G.O (3D)
14, Labour and No. 12,
(Letter (D) No. Employment (Letter (D) No. Labour and
499/E1/2009, Department, dt: 455/L&E , dt: Employment
(L&E), 27.11.2012 13.06.2007) Department,
dt: 31.08.2010) dt:
29.04.2008
2008 – 2009 and 28 G.O (Ms)
No. 77,
G.O. (2D) No. (Letter (D) No. Labour and
19, Labour and 6 /L&E , dt: Employment
Employment 06.01.2009) Department,
Department, dt: dt:
02.05.2014 25.06.2009
2009 – 2010 38 G.O (Ms)
No. 79,
(Letter (D) No. Labour and
193/E1/2010, Employment
L&E, Department,
dt:31.03.2010) dt:
28.04.2010
(only 22
vacancies have
been filled)30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch2010 – 2011 39 G.O (Ms)
No. 280,
(Letter (D) No. Labour and
602/E1/2010, Employment
L&E, Department,
dt:25.11.2010) dt:
28.12.2010
(only 27
vacancies have
been filled)
2011 -2012 5 G.O. (2D) No. 22 G.O. (Ms)
58, Labour and No. 48,
(letter (D) No. Employment (Letter (D) No. Labour and
256/E1/2011-9, Department, dt: 65, L &E, dt: Employment
(L&E), 17.09.2013 03.03.2011) Department,
dt: 12.06.2012 dt:
02.04.2012
The vacancies allocated for appointment to the post of Labour Officer in
the tabular column are based on the rota–quota principle, that is, on the basis of
the cadre strength, and not on the basis of the actual vacancies that arose due to
retirement or other reasons.
14. The petitioner in W.P. No. 15623 of 2019 has set out the alleged
violation of the rota–quota rule in a tabular form. Neither the State nor the
transferees have disputed the number of vacancies that arose during the period
from 1998 to 2012, the excess appointments made in favour of the transferees,
or the shortfall in appointments under the quota for direct recruits. The details of
31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
the vacancies available during the period from 1998 to 2012 and the
appointments made through direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer are
set out as follows:
Year of Actual appointments Total Excess (+) /
appointmen made in the year appointments/ Shortfall (-)
t vacancies of
the year
Rec.by DR Rec. by DR
transfer (Sl.No. Transfer
(Sl.No. From ..to)
From to)
1998 13 - 13 +4 -4
( 1 to 13)
1999 10 11 (24 to 21 -4 +4
(14 to 23) 34)
2000 19 2 (54 & 21 +5 -5
( 35 to 53) 55)
2002 - 1 (56) 1 -1 +1
2003 3 - 3 +1 -1
(57 to 59)
2008 18 11 ( 60, 79 29 - -
( 61 to 78) to 88)
2009 28 - 28 +10 -10
(89 to 116)
2010 50 - 50 +16 -16
(117 to
166)
Total 141 25 166 + 31 -31
2012 22 15 (189 to 37 +13 -13
(167 to 203)
188)
Total 163 40 203 +44 -44
32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
15. The table shows the appointments made to the post of Labour
Officer between 1998 and 2012 through recruitment by transfer and direct
recruitment. During this period, a total of 203 appointments were made, out of
which 163 were by recruitment by transfer and only 40 were by direct
recruitment. This resulted in a significant deviation from the prescribed 1:2
ratio, leading to excess appointments of transferees and a corresponding
shortfall in direct recruits. Overall, there was an excess of 44 appointments by
transfer and a shortfall of 44 direct recruit appointments, indicating a violation
of the quota–rota principle governing the cadre.
16. In the preceding paragraphs, it has been held that the quota
prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour is
required to be applied on a vacancy-wise basis and not on a cadre-wise basis.
Consequently, the appointments made by way of recruitment by transfer in
favour of the private respondents are found to be in excess of the quota allotted
to that category under the governing rules.
17. This view has been arrived at upon a proper interpretation of the
Explanation to Rule 2 of the Special Rules, as well as the legal principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in relation to the issue in
33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
question, wherein it has been held as follows:
18. The interpretation of the Explanation to Rule 2 of the Special Rules
was examined by the then Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos.
1201 and 1226 of 1992. The Tribunal, by order dated 18.02.1994, held that
seniority normally starts from the date of regular appointment made according
to the rules, not from the date of confirmation. If a person is appointed only
temporarily or as a stop-gap arrangement, that period will not count for
seniority. However, if the person continues in service and is later regularised
according to the rules, the earlier service may be counted.
19. When appointments are made from more than one source, the
prescribed quota between the sources must normally be followed. If the quota
cannot be followed for a long time and appointments are made from one source
in excess, it may indicate that the quota system has broken down. In such cases,
if appointments were otherwise made according to the rules, those appointees
should not be pushed below persons appointed later from another source. Also,
if the rules allow relaxation of the quota, it may be presumed that such
relaxation was granted when deviations occur.
34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
20. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the Government
issued orders in G.O. (D) No. 30 dated 23.08.1996, prescribing guidelines for
fixing the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. The above
order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality and was not challenged by any
party. The direct recruits contend that the guidelines prescribed in G.O. No. 30
dated 23.08.1996 have been consistently followed for fixing the inter se
seniority between direct recruits and transferees in the Labour Department.
21. The petitioner in W.P. No. 14887 of 2019 has produced, in the typed
set of papers, a memorandum dated 04.05.2009 issued by the Commissioner of
Labour, Chennai. In the said memorandum, it is stated that pursuant to the
orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 41427 of 2002 and connected writ
petitions dated 23.01.2004, the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and
transferees in the cadre of Assistant Inspectors of Labour in the Tamil Nadu
Labour Subordinate Service was revised and refixed based on the quota–rota
rule for the period from 1973 to 1996–1997, in two spells.
35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
22. The memorandum further states that for the period from 1997–1998
to 2007–2008, the quota–rota rule prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 35, Labour and
Employment Department, dated 21.03.1996, forms the foundational basis for
fixing the inter se seniority between direct recruits and transferees.
23. The said quota–rota rule prescribed under the proviso to Rule 3 of the
Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Subordinate Service does not
contemplate the identification of one substantive vacancy for a direct recruit in
every rotation of vacancies at the ratio of 1:4. Therefore, the rotation of
vacancies within the prescribed quota of 1:4 has to be applied on a vacancy-by-
vacancy basis, both in respect of substantive vacancies and non-substantive
vacancies, for the purpose of integrating the seniority of direct recruits and
transferees.
24. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 6627 to 6633 of 2005,
by order dated 29.06.2009, while dealing with Explanation 1(a) to Rule 2 of the
Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service and Rule 6 of the General
Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, held that the General
Rules have not expressly repealed the Special Rules. Since the necessary
conditions for the Special Rules yielding to the General Rules were not
36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
satisfied, and in view of the non-obstante clause contained in Explanation 1(a)
to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service, the Special
Rules would prevail over the General Rules. The Division Bench further held
that so long as the rule remains in force, the respondents are bound to
implement the same. Therefore, without challenging the validity of Explanation
1(a) to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service, the
petitioner Association cannot assail the correctness of the estimation of
vacancies, including temporary vacancies, made in accordance with the said
rule.
25. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 811 and 812 of 2011
and connected writ appeals, by order dated 17.04.2018, held that the inter se
seniority between direct recruits and promotees must be determined on a year-
to-year basis, by applying the ratio prescribed under the relevant Government
Order. The Division Bench further held that such seniority has to be determined
with reference to the dates on which the respective quota for each category
became available in a particular year. It was further observed that whenever
direct recruitment is made, the direct recruits would be entitled to placement of
their seniority against the vacancies reserved for them under the prescribed
ratio. Similarly, where promotees are promoted in excess of their quota, they
37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
cannot be granted seniority from the date of such promotion, but can claim
seniority only from the dates on which vacancies within their quota became
available.
26. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 15683 and 15684 of
2011, by order dated 03.08.2018, held that as per Rule 8 of the Special Rules,
the ratio prescribed for direct recruitment, transfer, and promotion is 1:1:5. This
means that whenever the first vacancy arises, it must be earmarked for direct
recruitment, and once the vacancy is earmarked for direct recruitment, the
consequential benefit of seniority must also be assigned accordingly. However,
the official respondents, while granting retrospective regularisation to the
promotee Assistant Section Officers, permitted encroachment by promotee
officers into the quota meant for direct recruits, thereby defeating the right of
the petitioners to have their seniority fixed on the basis of their substantive
appointment. The Court further observed that the crucial question is whether a
substantive appointee has a better right than a temporary appointee, and the
inevitable conclusion would be that a substantive appointee has a superior right.
Accordingly, service benefits, including seniority, must be determined on that
basis.
38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
27. In W.P. No. 15683 of 2011, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by
order dated 03.08.2018, further held that Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants’ Conditions of Service Act, 2016 has only a general
application and cannot be invoked in cases where the quota–rota system is
mandatory under the Special Rules.
28. In Union of India and Others v. S.D. Gupta and Others [(1996) 8
SCC 14], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of direct recruitment
is to blend talent with experience so as to enhance efficiency. Direct recruits
may initially be appointed on a temporary basis; however, upon completion of
the period of probation, they become substantive appointees. The quota of 60%
reserved for direct recruits applies to substantive vacancies and, therefore, the
fact that their initial appointment is temporary does not affect their entitlement
to be treated as substantive appointees upon successful completion of probation.
29. In All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India and
Others [(1999) 3 SCC 384], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
Government had deviated from the prescribed ratio while making ad hoc
promotions on the ground that one particular cadre had already been over-
represented. Therefore, additional promotions were made in another category to
39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
correct the imbalance. Such action was held not to be unfair.
30. In Suraj Prakash Gupta and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 561], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
promotees occupying posts meant for direct recruitment in excess of their quota
must be pushed down and adjusted against subsequent vacancies within their
quota after due regularisation. Service rendered outside the promotee quota
cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority.
31. In Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Association v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others [(2006) 10 SCC 346], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that promotion becomes regular only from the date on which a vacancy within
the quota becomes available and that seniority must be counted from that date
and not from the date of earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. The
Court further observed that although pushing down promotees appointed in
excess of the quota may cause hardship, such consequence is unavoidable since
the quota rule is statutory in nature and must be strictly followed. Any deviation
from the statutory quota rule would violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution of India.
40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
32. In Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab and Others [(2006) 6
SCC 673], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that injustice to direct recruits
cannot be compounded by placing the promotees en bloc above the direct
recruits in the matter of seniority, particularly when both categories were
selected pursuant to the same requisition sent by the Government to the Public
Service Commission.
33. In AFHQ/ISOs SOs (DP) Association and Others v. Union of India
and Others [(2008) 3 SCC 331], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
promotees who are promoted within their quota under the relevant rules would
be entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation from the date of their
substantive appointment to the grade on the availability of a substantive post.
However, those appointed only on a temporary basis would not be entitled to
such benefit and would be liable to be reverted upon the joining of candidates
selected through the UPSC. Such temporary appointees may avoid actual
reversion if vacancies in their quota become available in the subsequent year
and they secure substantive appointment on the basis of their seniority.
34. In R.K. Mobisana Singh v. Kh. Temba Singh and Others [(2008) 1
SCC 747], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although seniority is not a
41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
fundamental right, it is a civil right. Retrospective regularisation of ad hoc
promotees, which adversely affects the relative seniority of direct recruits, has
been deprecated, particularly when no opportunity of representation has been
given to the persons adversely affected.
35.. In Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and Another v. State of Assam and
Others [(2013) 2 SCC 516], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier
decision in D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik v. State of Jharkhand, held that promotions
granted to promotees not in accordance with the quota rule cannot be justified
by contending that the quota rule had broken down. The Court held that
promotions made beyond the prescribed quota cannot be treated as valid so as to
grant the promotees seniority over the direct recruits. Consequently, the Court
held that the promotees were not entitled to claim seniority over the direct
recruits.
36. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State
submitted that the vacancies were filled by taking into account the “men in
position” in both the categories, namely direct recruits and recruitment by
transfer, and therefore there was no excess appointment by way of recruitment
by transfer. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 7045 of 2006 dated
42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
29.07.2009 observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the
contention of the writ petitioner that the vacancy arising due to retirement of
promotee officer belonging to a particular feeder cadre must be filled up by that
category only. The Division Bench held that the department ought to have
followed the vacancy based roaster in accordance with the ratio instead of post
based roaster, therefore the contention of the learned Additional Advocate
General is misplaced and contrary to Explanation to Rule 2 of Special Rules.
37. The Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers’ Association held that seniority normally starts from the date of
appointment made according to the rules, not from the date of confirmation. If
the appointment is only ad hoc or as a stop-gap arrangement, that period will
not count for seniority. However, if a person continues in service and is later
regularised according to the rules, the earlier service may be counted. Where
recruitment is made from more than one source, the prescribed quota between
sources must be followed. If the quota rule cannot be followed for many years,
it may be treated as having broken down, and appointments made after
following the rules should not be pushed below persons appointed later. If the
rules allow relaxation of quota, such relaxation may be presumed when
deviations occur. The Court also observed that quota may be fixed through
43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
executive instructions if rules are silent, and if such instructions are not
followed for long, they may cease to operate. Finally, the Court emphasised that
settled service positions should not be disturbed and that matters already
decided by a competent court are barred by res judicata.
38. In Jagdish Ch. Patnaik, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely
prescribing a quota for recruitment from different sources does not
automatically imply that the same quota would govern the determination of
seniority. The Court observed that the quota fixed for recruitment and the
principles governing seniority operate in different fields. Only in cases where
promotees are appointed in excess of the quota prescribed for them under the
rules can such appointments be treated as contrary to the governing rules and,
consequently, liable to be disregarded while determining seniority.
39. In B.S. Mathur, which dealt with Rule 8 of the Delhi Judicial Service
Rules, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the application of the rota–quota
principle in determining inter se seniority between direct recruits and
promotees. The Court observed that strict application of the rota–quota principle
may, in certain circumstances, result in serious injustice, particularly where
direct recruits enter service much later but are nevertheless placed above
promotees who had been working in the cadre for several years. In such
44
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
situations, where the rota–quota system has effectively broken down, the Court
held that it would neither be fair nor equitable to grant seniority to later
appointees over those who had already been appointed and were discharging
duties in the cadre.
40. However, the decision in B S Mathur is clearly distinguishable from
the facts of the present case. In the cases referred to above, the delay in filling
the posts through direct recruitment was due to administrative reasons or the
non-availability of suitable candidates, and the promotees had not encroached
upon the vacancies earmarked for direct recruits. The promotions were made to
meet administrative exigencies and not by occupying posts reserved for direct
recruitment.
41. In the present case, however, the factual position is entirely different.
The private respondents, who are transferees, were appointed in excess of the
quota prescribed for recruitment by transfer under the governing rules. Such
appointments have resulted in encroachment upon the vacancies earmarked for
direct recruits. Therefore, the principles laid down in the case of BS. Mathur
cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
42. The rota–quota rule generally operates with reference to the cadre
strength and is therefore usually treated as a cadre-wise quota. Under the rota–
quota rule, a fixed percentage of posts in the cadre is reserved for each source of
recruitment. For instance, where the rule prescribes 50% for direct recruits and
50% for promotees, the appointments are made in a rotational order according
to that quota. Under this system, the quota is calculated with reference to the
total sanctioned posts in the cadre and not with reference to each individual
vacancy. The rotation of posts is maintained within the overall cadre strength.
43. Under the quota–rota rule, however, the quota between different
sources of recruitment is applied to each vacancy as and when it arises, and the
rotational order determines the sequence in which such vacancies are to be
filled. Thus, the quota is implemented on a vacancy-wise basis through rotation.
In the present case, the Explanation to Rule 2 of the Special Rules provides for
the quota–rota system. This means that when appointments are to be made from
two sources, namely direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer, the first
vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Labour shall be filled by
direct recruitment and the next two vacancies shall be filled by recruitment by
transfer, and the rotation shall continue in the same sequence.
46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
44. In the present case, there were certain years during which no
appointments were made through direct recruitment, and the vacancies
earmarked for direct recruits were instead filled by way of promotion by
transfer, without carrying forward the backlog meant for direct recruitment.
Consequently, the private respondents were promoted to the vacancies meant
for direct recruits, thereby encroaching upon the quota reserved for direct
recruits. Therefore, their appointments to the post of Assistant Commissioner of
Labour cannot be treated as appointments to substantive vacancies within their
quota. Such appointments are contrary to the governing rules and are therefore
illegal and irregular. Consequently, the private respondents cannot claim
seniority over the direct recruits, merely on the ground that they were appointed
earlier in time.
45. The State and the transferees contend that the length of service of
the transferees in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner is comparatively shorter
than that of the direct recruits and, therefore, a greater number of vacancies
arise on account of the retirement of transferees. According to them, those
vacancies are subsequently filled by direct recruits, and therefore the direct
recruits cannot claim any grievance in this regard.
47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
46. Though the above contention may appear attractive and logical at
first glance, the same cannot be accepted. The Explanation to Rule 2 of the
Special Rules, which governs the manner of appointment to the cadre, has
neither been challenged nor amended by the State. As long as the rule remains
in force, it is binding on the authorities and must be strictly followed.
47. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a statute prescribes
that a thing must be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner
alone and not otherwise. Therefore, the appointments and the consequential
fixation of seniority must necessarily be in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the said rule.
CONCLUSION :
48. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the
Explanation to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service
contemplates implementation of the quota on a vacancy-wise basis (quota–rota)
and not on the basis of cadre strength. The materials placed on record
demonstrate that the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment were filled by
48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
recruitment by transfer without carrying forward the backlog, resulting in
appointments of transferees in excess of their prescribed quota. Such
appointments are contrary to the statutory rules and cannot confer any right of
seniority over the direct recruits.
49. Consequently, the transferees who were appointed against vacancies
meant for direct recruits cannot claim seniority over the direct recruits merely
on the ground that they entered service earlier in point of time. Their seniority
has to be adjusted in accordance with the quota–rota principle and the governing
Special Rules. Accordingly, the impugned seniority fixation placing the
transferees above the direct recruits cannot be sustained.
50. In view of the above, the Writ Petition in W.P.No. 29670 of 2015
filed by the transferees is dismissed. The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.
22881/2023, 1857/2020, 14887/2019, 15623/2019, 15973/2018, 16924/2019,
26309/2018 and 26316 of 2018 filed by the Direct recruits are allowed.
51. The official respondents are directed to rework the inter se seniority
between the direct recruits and transferees in the cadre of Assistant
Commissioner of Labour by applying the vacancy wise quota rota principle in
49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
accordance with the Special Rules within three (3) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13.03.2026
Index: Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes
ak
To
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Labour & Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S., Mount Road,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018
3. The Principal Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
4. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai-600 002.
50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
ak
W.P. Nos. 29670/2015, 15623 of 2019,
15973 of 2018, 16929 of 2019,
14887 of 2019 and 1857 of 2020,
22881/2023, 26309/2018 and 26316 /2018
13.03.2026
51
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )