Supreme Court: In appeals and transferred cases concerning the inter se seniority of direct recruits, special appointees (temporary appointees regularised under the T.N. Special Absorption Rules, 1987) and compassionate appointees in ministerial posts in Tamil Nadu, a Division Bench of S.V.N. Bhatti and Shree Chandrashekhar*, JJ., upheld Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules and held that direct recruits selected through the November 1983 TNPSC examination would rank above special appointees, irrespective of their dates of appointment. The Court further held that compassionate appointees could not claim seniority over the direct recruits merely on the basis of their initial appointment dates. However, inter se seniority between special and compassionate appointees must be determined by their respective dates of regularisation, unless applicable recruitment rules prescribe otherwise. The Court modified the judgment dated 3 April 2006 of the Madras High Court accordingly.
Factual Matrix
The instant appeals and transferred cases arose from a dispute concerning the inter se seniority of 3 categories of employees appointed to ministerial posts in the State of Tamil Nadu: direct recruits selected through the T.N. Public Service Commission (TNPSC), temporary appointees subsequently regularised under the T.N. Special Absorption Rules, 1987 (T.N. Special Absorption Rules) and employees appointed on compassionate grounds, wherein each category claimed a higher position in the combined seniority list, thus giving rise to competing claims founded on the date of initial appointment, subsequent regularisation and the applicable Government Orders and service rules.
During 1981—1983, the Government of T.N. imposed a ban on appointments to the posts of Junior Assistants and other ministerial staff. Nevertheless, temporary appointments were made under Rule 10(a)(i), General Rules contained in Part II, T.N. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 (the Rules). The appellant and 13 other persons were appointed under this provision during 1981—1984.
Meanwhile, the TNPSC advertised 5000 Group IV posts, for which a competitive examination was conducted on 27 November 1983. The results were published on different dates, and appointments were made between 1985 and 1987. These candidates were referred to as the direct recruits of the 1983 batch.
Around 1984, the State Government decided to regularise the services of Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-typists appointed on compassionate grounds. By Government Order (G.O.) dated 14 September 1984, the seniority of such compassionate appointees was directed to be fixed among direct recruits according to their dates of appointment.
Separately, the services of special appointees, including appellants, were regularised with effect from 26 June 1984 under the G.O. dated 22 September 1984. Their seniority was thereafter governed by Clause 10, Special Absorption Rules, notified through G.O.Ms. No. 548 dated 19 June 1987.
The appellant, who had been appointed as a Junior Assistant/Typist on 1 December 1983 and subsequently absorbed into regular service with effect from 26 June 1984, challenged her placement below the direct recruits in the provisional seniority list. She approached the T.N. Administrative Tribunal seeking the quashing of Clause 10, Special Absorption Rules.
The dispute was complicated by earlier proceedings concerning the seniority of compassionate appointees. In W.P. No. 7730 of 1987, filed by 23 compassionate appointees challenging their ouster from service while 157 special appointees were retained, the High Court directed a combined seniority list of Commission candidates (by date of joining) and compassionate appointees (by date of regularisation). A compassionate appointee was to rank above a Commission candidate where both came in on the same day, and all candidates under the Absorption Rules were to rank below both.. The decision was affirmed in W.A. No. 787 of 1988.
By its judgment dated 3 April 2006, the Division Bench held that the 1983-batch direct recruits would rank above special appointees appointed under Rule 10(a)(i), irrespective of the dates of appointment of the direct recruits. It nevertheless maintained the principle that the inter se seniority of compassionate appointees and direct recruits would depend on their dates of initial appointment.
Thus, the resulting appeals reflected the opposing positions of the 3 categories. The appellant and other special appointees challenged their placement below the direct recruits; the direct recruits challenged the precedence accorded to compassionate appointees; and the transferred cases concerned the challenge to Clause 10, Special Absorption Rules.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether direct recruits selected through the TNPSC competitive examination are entitled to seniority over temporary appointees subsequently regularised under the T.N. Special Absorption Rules and compassionate appointees?
-
Whether the inter se seniority of special and compassionate appointees is to be determined from the date of regularisation?
Analysis
Direct recruits vis-à-vis compassionate appointees — Seniority of
The Court examined G.O. dated 14 September 1984, issued under the authority of the Governor, which sought to place compassionate appointees among direct recruits according to their dates of appointment. It noted that the G.O. could not be construed to confer upon compassionate appointees an unconditional right to seniority above direct recruits selected through the regular competitive process. Although the G.O. provided for placing compassionate appointees among direct recruits according to the dates of appointment, it remained an executive order under Article 162 of the Constitution and could not override the governing service rules.
The Court observed that compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of recruitment prescribed under Rule 6 of Part II, Tamil Nadu Service Rules. It constitutes an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is intended to provide relief to the dependants of government employees who die in harness. Consequently, compassionate appointees form a separate class and cannot be placed above direct recruits merely on the basis of their initial appointment dates.
The Court further held that employees selected through a regular recruitment process have a legitimate expectation to seniority over those who enter the cadre through exceptional or temporary arrangements. The subsequent regularisation of compassionate appointees could not render the direct recruits junior to them.
Accordingly, the Court held that the compassionate appointees involved in the appeals could not rank above the direct recruits of the 1983 batch. Any contrary interpretation of the G.O. would cause injustice to the direct recruits.
Clause 10, T.N. Special Absorption Rules, 1987 — Validity of
The Court noted that the special appointees had initially been appointed between 1981 and 1984 against temporary vacancies, generally through names drawn from the employment exchange. Following the imposition of a ban on such temporary appointments, the Government regularised their services with effect from 26 June 1984. Their seniority was subsequently governed by the Special Absorption Rules, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
Clause 10, Special Absorption Rules stipulated that the seniority of special appointees would be determined with reference to the date of their first temporary appointment in the departmental unit in which they were absorbed. However, it expressly provided that they would rank below candidates selected by the TNPSC in the November 1983 competitive examination, irrespective of the direct recruits’ dates of appointment. It also protected the seniority of persons appointed under the applicable Special Rules above special appointees.
The Court noted that Rule 10(a)(i) permits temporary appointments in circumstances of urgency and does not confer the status of regular appointment through the prescribed recruitment procedure. Such appointments are temporary and subject to replacement by duly qualified service members or approved candidates. The special appointees had entered the cadre through regularisation rather than the competitive examination conducted for the 1983 batch.
The Court held that “special appointees did not come to the service till their regularisation in service”. It relied on State of T.N. v. E. Paripoornam, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 420 and M.P. Palanisamy v. A. Krishnan, (2009) 6 SCC 428, whrein it had been held that employees appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) cannot claim seniority on the basis of temporary service rendered before regularisation. “Ad hoc employee cannot claim seniority above a junior person already in service even if he is the junior-most person in the cadre.”
The Court upheld Clause 10 as a valid and reasonable method of determining inter se seniority. It noted that Clause 10 follows the well-settled norm that employees appointed through the regular mode must rank higher than those who came into the cadre through regularisation, that the employer has the right to frame rules for determining inter se seniority, and that a rule cannot be challenged on the ground that it could have been framed better or that some hardship is caused to a class of employees. The delay in appointing the direct recruits had been adequately explained by the State, which acknowledged that temporary appointees had occupied the available posts. The direct recruits could not be penalised for a delay for which they were not responsible. The Court further noted that the Special Absorption Rules had overriding effect under Clause 3 and that the special appointees were bound by their provisions.
Accordingly, Clause 10 was upheld, and the special appointees were held to rank below the direct recruits of the 1983 batch, irrespective of the direct recruits’ dates of appointment.
Inter Se Seniority — general principles
The Court stated that the basic rule of seniority is that a government employee appointed in accordance with the prescribed rules and regular recruitment procedure ordinarily ranks senior to persons who entered service through temporary, ad hoc or stopgap arrangements.
In Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, the Court had explained that a direct recruit’s seniority is not to be fixed merely by reference to the date of confirmation. Conversely, a temporary or ad hoc employee who was not appointed in accordance with the rules cannot ordinarily claim seniority from the date of initial appointment.
The Court asserted that although the benefit of past temporary service may be recognised for certain purposes, including pension where the applicable rules permit it, such service cannot be used to confer seniority over the direct recruits of the 1983 batch.
Inter Se Seniority between special and compassionate appointees
While the direct recruits were entitled to rank above both categories, the Court separately considered the seniority dispute between special appointees and compassionate appointees and held that their inter se seniority must be determined by the date of regularisation.
The Court observed that seniority disputes should be examined on broad principles and with a practical, common-sense approach rather than through a mathematical examination of every factual detail. Unless the applicable recruitment rules prescribe a different method, seniority between temporary, ad hoc or compassionate appointees should ordinarily be reckoned from the date of regularisation.
Thus, the Court held that the High Court was correct in placing special appointees below direct recruits but erred in permitting compassionate appointees to rank above direct recruits on the basis of their initial appointment dates. The appropriate criterion for determining seniority between special and compassionate appointees was their respective dates of regularisation.
Decision
The Court dismissed the Transferred Cases (C) Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 2013 and disposed of the Civil Appeal Nos. 8756 and 8757 of 2013 with the direction that the inter se seniority of special appointees and compassionate appointees be determined according to their dates of regularisation. It allowed the Civil Appeal No. 8755 of 2013 to the extent that S. Prem Kumar and T.A. Kannappa could not rank above the direct recruits of the 1983 batch. Thus, modified the impugned judgment dated 3 April 2006 passed by the Madras High Court accordingly.
[M. Prema v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2094, decided on 9-10-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Ms. Binu Tamta- 121, AOR Mr. V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv.* Mr. R. Subramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jyoti Parasher, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan- 1101, AOR Mr. P R Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan- 1944, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar- 890,
For the Respondents: Ms. Rupali Francesca Samuel- 4335, AOR Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv. Ms. Supriya, Adv. Ms. Rakshita Mamgain, Adv.
