R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. Vs.The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Case Summary You Can Listen To on Caseon

0 01 May, 2025
Listen in 2:00 mins | Read in 61:05 mins

R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. Vs.The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Supreme Court Of India Special Leave Petition Civil/5137-38/2021

Link copied!

Case Background

As per case facts, the appellants, selected as Sub-Inspectors through open market direct recruitment, challenged the retrospective amendment to Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules which granted "en bloc" seniority ...

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

Article 309 The Constitution of India 1950

Hello! How can I help you? 😊

Disclaimer: We do not store your data.

Document Text Version

2025 INSC 612

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 1 of 41

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021]

R. RANJITH SINGH & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

& ORS.

…RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20061 of 2022]

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J .

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeals are arising out of common judgment

dated 08.01.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 25263/2009 and

Writ Petition No. 33544/2018 by High Court of Judicature at

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 2 of 41

Madras, which relates to disputes concerning seniority in the

cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellants

before this Court were appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police

through a process of selection, keeping in view Tamil Nadu

Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to

as “1955 Rules”). The 1955 Rules have been framed in exercise

of powers conferred under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act,

1859, Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. The recruitment rules provide for various

modes of recruitment which includes; (a) recruitment by transfer;

(b) direct recruitment; and (c) recruitment by promotion. In the

present case, the statutory provisions necessary to decide the

controversy involved (relating to direct recruitment and

promotion) are reproduced hereunder:

“Rule 3 – Method of Appointment and promotion

(a) (i) Appointment to the several classes and

categories shall be made as indicated in Annexure

– I.

(ii) Persons who were already included in the

‘C’ list for a particular year but not promoted before

the expiry of the validity of the said list be

considered for higher place in the list drawn in the

subsequent year on merits of each case in

preference to other persons included in the ‘C’ list.

(b) (i) Promotion to the under mentioned

posts shall be made on grounds of merit and ability

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 3 of 41

seniority being considered only where merit and

ability are approximately equal.

Inspectors – Inspector of Police

(Fingerprint)

Senior Reporter, Shorthand Bureau, Vellore

Sub-Inspectors-Sub Inspector of Police

(Fingerprint)

Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Omitted as per

G.O. No. 721 (Home dated 26-4-1 w.ef. 3-5-1990)

Reserve Inspectors

Reserve Sub-Inspectors

Reserve Assistant Sub-Inspector (Deleted in

G.O.Ms. No. 1827)

Head-Constables including Band Head

Constables, Office of the Director General of

Police, Madras.

Reserve Head Constables including

Armourers, Signallers and Motor Transport

Drivers.

(ii) Such promotion shall be made from a list

of qualified candidates suitable for promotion

prepared and finalised by

(a) The State Promotion Board constituted by

the Director General of Police, subject to the

appointment of the Government from time to time in

the case of promotion to the post of inspectors,

reserve Inspectors and Senior Reporters, Shorthand

Bureau, Madras from the ranks of Sub-Inspectors,

Reserve Sub-Inspectors and Junior Reporters,

respectively.

(b) The Range Promotion Board in respect of

various units as detailed below, subject to the

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 4 of 41

approval of the Deputy Inspector General of Police

or Commissioner of Police, Madras, as the case

may be in respect of promotion from the posts of

Head constables to Reserve Sub-Inspectors and

from the post of Had Constables to Sub-Inspectors

(There shall be only one combined list for

promotion from the rank of Head Constables to Sub-

Inspectors.

The Range Promotion Board of the Range

specified in Column (1) of the Table below shall

consist of the District and Unit specified in the

corresponding entries in Column (2) therefor.

xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx

Annexure – 1

[Referred to in rule 3(a)]

Class and

Read also:

4. From the Director General of Police, Chennai,

letter Rc.No.168187/Rect.II(1)/2016, dated

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 16 of 41

18.01.2017, 18.07.2017, 02.08.2017 and

24.08.2017.

*****

ORDER:

In the Government Order first read above,

orders were issued reserving 20% of the vacancies

in the direct recruitment quota of the Sub-Inspector

of Police for the Police Constables and Head

Constables in Category-I and their equivalent ranks

in the Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special

Police Branch in category-II and III. The 80%

direct recruitment quota of Sub-Inspector of Police

will be filled by from open market and 20% from

serving 'Police personnel in all the three categories.

It was also ordered that "the inter-se-seniority of the

candidates selected against this recruitment would

be above those selected in the open competition in

the year.

2. In the Government Order second read

above, among others, notification for making

suitable amendment regarding reservation of 20%

vacancies of the direct recruitment quota for the

departmental candidates as ordered in the

Government order first read above, to the relevant

provision of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu

Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 giving

retrospective effect from 13.07.1995 was issued. But

no amendment relating to fixing inter-se-seniority

between direct recruits. Sub-lnspectors from open

market and Departmental candidates was made in

the said Order. However in the Government Order

third read above, necessary amendment to the

relevant rules for fixing the inter-se-seniority

between the Departmental quota Sub-Inspector of

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 17 of 41

Police candidates and the direct Sub-Inspectors of

Police from the open market was issued. But the

said amendment was not notified in the Government

Gazette inadvertently.

3. The Director General of Police, Chennai,

has stated that based on the Government Order first

read above, the seniority of the 20% departmental

quota candidates of directly recruited Sub-

Inspectors of Police for the year 1994-1995, 1997-

1998 and 2001-2002 (WSIs batch) were fixed above

the open quota candidates. He has therefore

requested to re-issue amendment to Rule 25 (a) of

the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police

Subordinate Services, 1955, fixing the seniority of

the directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police from

the Departmental quota candidates above the open

quota candidates with retrospective effect.

4. After careful examination, the Government

have decided to accept the proposal of the Director

General of Police, Chennai and to give effect to the

amendment retrospectively i.e., from 13.07.1995.

Accordingly the following notification shall be

published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette:-

NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sections 8 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu District Police

Act, 1859 (Central Act XXIV of 1859) and sections

9 and 11 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 (Tamil

Nadu Act III of 1888) read with proviso to Article

309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of

Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment

to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police

Subordinate Service (Section 34 in Volume III of the

Tamil Nadu Services Manual, 1986).

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 18 of 41

2. The amendment hereby made shall be

deemed to have come into force on the 13

July

1995.

AMENDMENT

In the said Special Rules, in rule 25, in sub-rule (a),

after the fifth proviso, the following proviso shall be

inserted, namely:-

“Provided also that the seniority of the Sub-

Inspectors of Police directly recruited under the

departmental quota shall be fixed above the persons

directly recruited under open quota in the same

recruitment.”

The consequential amendment was also made in the

recruitment rules meaning thereby that the G.O. dated 21.11.2017

was also notified in the official Gazette, making the amendment

applicable with retrospective effect.

6. The facts of the case reveal that the constables working in

the police department in the year 1995 were given 20% of the

vacancies to compete under the direct recruitment quota and they

were to be given seniority over and above the other 80%

remaining constables recruited through open market.

7. A large number of writ petitions were preferred before the

High Court of Madras challenging the fixation of seniority and it

was brought to the notice of the High Court that by virtue of the

amendment incorporated by G.O. dated 21.11.2017, persons who

were less meritorious in the process of selection were placed over

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 19 of 41

and above meritorious candidates. The categoric examples were

given in the writ petition and have also been given before this

Court which reveal that out of 100 marks, the Appellant Ranjith

Singh had secured 79.10 and he was the first rank holder; the

Appellant Premanand had secured 78.60, Jawahar had secured

77.56 and Srinivasan had secured 77.21. The other Appellants

have also secured very high percentage of marks and the 147

candidates selected from the department as against 20% quota

have secured lower marks than the candidates who were selected

from the open market. Example of one Santhakumari who is a

departmental candidate finds mention who had secured 69.27

marks. Unfortunately, Santhakumari has been placed over and

above persons who have obtained higher marks. The High Court

of Madras has dismissed the Writ Petitions of direct recruitees

and the operative paragraph of the order as contained in paras 31,

32 and 33 reads as under:

“31. As regards the seniority of the remaining 600

directly recruited candidates and the 267 in-service

candidates, admittedly, the in-service candidates

have to be given a preference especially when they

have already earned hands-on experience in the

department and had learnt the nuances in the police

department. Such experience gained by them would

certainly overweigh against the 600 candidates

appointed along with them on 02.06.1997. In order

to strike a balance among the 600 candidates

appointed along with the 267 in-service candidates,

we have to adopt a yardstick which would be just

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 20 of 41

and reasonable. If a method is adopted for

reckoning the seniority among the directly recruited

600 candidates and the in-service candidates,

preference will have to certainly be given to the in-

service candidates. We wish to reiterate that the

Government, while earmarking 20% of the

vacancies for the direct recruitment quota of the

Sub-Inspector of Police for existing Police

Constables and Head Constables, imposed a

condition that they must have completed five years

of service and that they should not have been

subjected to any disciplinary proceedings or

punishment. Therefore, we can construe that only

those candidates who have a clean track record

have been allowed to participate in the selection

process as in-service candidates and this is also one

of the reasons why they should be given preference

above the 600 directly recruited candidates. If such

a preference is not given to the in-service

candidates, at least for determining their seniority,

it would frustrate them as they have taken the

mantle much ahead of the 600 directly recruited

candidates.

32. On behalf of the directly recruited candidates,

much has been argued that the amendments brought

in after 22 years giving preference to in-service

candidates is unreasonable and it has no nexus

sought to be achieved. It is also vehemently

contended that the statutory rules cannot be

overridden by executive order and therefore, the

amendment brought in to Rule 25 (e) of the Special

Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service is

illegal and it will not give preference to the in-

service candidates. We are unable to accept this

contention advanced on behalf of the directly

recruited candidates. The Government is always

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 21 of 41

empowered to bring in amendment to the Statutory

Rules. It cannot be gainsaid that such amendments

were brought in after a great length of delay. The

power to bring in amendment to a statutory rule is

always vested with the State legislature and it

cannot be questioned on the ground of delay. Even

otherwise, in the decision relied on by Mr.

Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel in the case of

Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and

another reported in 1967 AIR 1910 it was held that

government is empowered to issue administrative

instructions and such instructions will have a

binding force. It was also held that government

cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by

administrative instructions, but if the rules are

silent on any particular point Government can fill

up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue

administrative instructions not inconsistent with the

rules already framed. Therefore, it is evident that

while bringing in an amendment, the only

requirement is that such amendment should not be

inconsistent with any other law for the time being in

force or in any manner repugnant to the existing

rules. In the present case, the amendment brought

to the Special Rules to the Tamil Nadu Police

Subordinate Service Rules to the effect that

preference can be given to seniority to the members

in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service by

placing them above the direct recruits selected from

the open market in the same year. Such an

amendment brought to Rule 25 (a) in our opinion is

not repugnant or inconsistent with any other laws

time being in force. Further, the Government, in

their wisdom, have thought it fit to give preference

to the in-service candidates who have already put in

five years of experience prior to their recruitment to

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 22 of 41

the post of Sub-Inspector. Above all, the

Government thought it fit that those in-service

candidates are already aged when compared to the

directly recruited candidates and therefore, if they

are given preference in fixation of seniority, they

could get the promotional prospects before their

retirement, otherwise they could not. In such view of

the matter, we are of the view that the amendments

brought to Rule 24 (e) of the Special Rules for Tamil

Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service is proper

and we do not see any reason to interfere with the

same.

33. In the light of the above, we dispose of these writ

petitions/writ appeal with the following

observation:-

(i) The directly recruited 500 candidates are

ordered to be placed first in the seniority list as has

been directed by the Division Bench of this Court in

the Judgment dated 11.03.2015 passed in WA Nos.

1599 and 1600 of 2014 and WP No. 2570 of 2015,

which was also affirmed by the Honourable

Supreme Court in SLP Civil No. 15710 to 15712

of2015 dated 09.02.2017.

(ii) The 267 in-service candidates are

ordered to be placed next in the seniority list below

the 500 directly recruited candidates mentioned in

clause (i) above

(iii) The 600 directly recruited candidates are

ordered to be placed below the 267 in-service

candidates mentioned in clause (ii) above in the

order of seniority

(iv) W.A. No. 484 of 2018 stands dismissed by

confirming the order dated 27.06.2017 passed by

the learned single Judge in WP No. 4355 of 2017

(v) The official respondents are directed to

prepare the seniority list as directed above and

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 23 of 41

proceed further in accordance with law. Such an

exercise is directed to be concluded within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.”

8. The High Court has assigned a reasoning for granting

seniority to in-service candidates who have taken part in the

examination meant for direct recruitment under the 20% quota by

holding that in-service candidates have to be given preference,

especially as they are experienced people in the Department and

had learnt the nuances in the Police department.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has

vehemently argued before this Court that under the 1955 Rules,

there are already three modes of recruitment, which are (i) by

transfer to the services; (ii) by promotion; and (iii) by direct

recruitment. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far as

direct recruitment is concerned, the seniority of all direct

recruitees has to be fixed based upon the marks obtained by them

in the qualifying examination and preferential treatment cannot

be given to candidates who are in-service candidates. He has

further argued before this Court that once the recruitment is from

the open market i.e. direct recruitment, merely because a person

has worked in the Department earlier, such person cannot steal a

march over direct recruitees even though he is lower in merit.

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 24 of 41

Hence, the amendment brought vide G.O. dated 10.06.2009 and

G.O. dated 21.11.2017 amending Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules

are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India

and deserves to be struck down by this Court.

10. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued before this

Court that until the year 1995, the Head Constables serving the

Department were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspectors under

the promotion quota only and there was no such quota prescribed

for them to participate in the direct recruitment process.

However, as there was stagnation in the cadre of constables, the

Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to provide

reservation to the persons from constabulary services to

participate in the direct recruitment also to the extent of 20% of

the vacancies. He has contended that the concession of granting

participation in 20% of the vacancies reserved for direct

recruitment is itself bad in law, however, the direct recruitees

under the 80% quota are not aggrieved by the same. The only

grievance is that the seniority has to be maintained as per the

marks obtained in the examination, through which persons have

been selected to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police.

11. Learned Senior Counsel has further contended that High

Court has failed to consider the statutory rules governing the

fixation of inter-se seniority and the same could not have been

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 25 of 41

given effect to, by an executive order or circular, as has been done

by the State Government from time to time. Learned Senior

Counsel has further argued before this Court that the amendment

which was brought in force vide G.O. dated 21.11.2017 which

subsequently amended the 1955 Rules could not have been given

effect to from 1995 and by no stretch of imagination a person

lower in merit can be placed over and above a person who

secured more marks and who is higher in merit. Learned Senior

Counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the entire

exercise on part of the State Government is nothing but

appeasement of in-service candidates contrary to the settled

principles of law, which provides for grant of seniority based

upon the merit list prepared on the basis of process of recruitment

conducted by the recruiting agency. In the present case, a large

number of examinations were involved and all the examinations

were conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment

Board and the merit list prepared on the basis of the examination

is a sacrosanct list and the same has to be given effect to.

12. On the other hand, a detailed and exhaustive counter

affidavit has been filed by the State Government and it has been

stated that as per G.O.(Ms.) No. 1054 dated 13.07.1995, the

government has earmarked 20% of the vacancies in the section

for direct recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police by allowing in-

service candidates who otherwise satisfy the other eligibility

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 26 of 41

criteria for selection and the said G.O. provides for grant of

seniority to them over the remaining 80% Sub-Inspectors

selected from the open market. It has been contended that in the

absence of statutory rules, the Government is empowered to issue

administrative instructions which have a binding force even in

the absence of a notification in the official Gazette and the

Government is entitled to bring an amendment at any point of

time. It has been further contended that by virtue of Executive

Instructions dated 13.07.1995, the process of recruitment was

adhered to by appointing large number of candidates and the in-

service candidates were appointed prior to the direct recruits

appointed from the open market and, therefore, the in-service

candidates have to be given seniority over the candidates

appointed through the process of selection meant for persons

from open market. Respondents have further stated that large

number of Sub-Inspectors who are in-service candidates have

received further promotions and at this juncture, if seniority list

is recasted, it will result in great injustice as some of them will

have to be reverted and the Appellants will have to be given

promotion based upon fresh gradation list on the basis of their

performance in the examination conducted for the post in

question. Respondents have also given reference to the litigation

which took place in the past and have prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 27 of 41

13. The departmental candidates have also filed a reply in the

matter and their contention is that the plea raised by the

appellants before this Court that executive instructions cannot

over-ride the statutory rules, does not have legs to stand as

amendment has been carried out in the recruitment rules also. It

has been vehemently argued that the recruitment rules provide

for placing the candidates selected through open market below

the departmental candidates right from 1995 and as the

recruitment rules were not amended, the Government after

realizing its mistake have issued a notification dated 21.11.2017

and has rightly given retrospective effect i.e. with effect from

1995. The Respondents have further stated that the question of

quashing the amendment under the 1955 Rules does not arise as

it will result in unsettling the applecart and will also lead to

reversion of large number of in-service candidates. The

Respondents have further contended that the State Government

in its wisdom thought it fit to give preference to the in-service

candidates who have already put in five years’ service prior to the

recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector under the 20% quota out

of 100% earmarked for direct recruitment and the same was done

as in-service candidates were having experience, they are aged

and in order to provide channel of promotion to them before their

retirement. The Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the

appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 28 of 41

upon a judgment delivered in the case of State of Himachal

Pradesh and Others Vs. Raj Kumar and Others 2022 SCC

OnLine SC 680 and it has been argued that based upon aforesaid

judgment, the question of granting seniority to the appellants

does not arise.

14. We have learned Senior Counsel for all the parties at length

appearing on respective sides and have carefully gone through

the record and the case laws cited by all the learned counsel for

the parties.

15. The dispute involved in the present case is fixation of inter

se seniority in respect of direct recruitment which includes some

in-service candidates also recruited under the direct recruitment

quota. The 1955 Rules provide for recruitment to the post of Sub-

Inspectors of Police by way of direct recruitment and by way of

promotion. Rule 3 quoted earlier provides for two sources of

recruitment. The State Government in exercise of powers

conferred under proviso 2 to Article 309 of the Constitution of

India has framed recruitment rules for appointment to the post of

Sub-Inspectors of Police and as already stated earlier, the

recruitment is made by direct recruitment and by promotion from

the eligible candidates already serving the Department. The State

Government, keeping in view of the representations from large

number of constables and other allied categoric police personnels

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 29 of 41

who were not able to make a mark to the post of Sub-Inspectors

of Police under the promotion quota, took a policy decision to

provide some reservation to the serving Head Constables in the

Police Department under the Direct Recruitment quota and a

G.O. (Ms.) No. 1054 dated 13.07.1995 was issued reserving 20%

of the vacancies under the direct recruitment to be filled up only

from constabulary services. Thus, in short, under the direct

recruitment quota, constables fulfilling the requisite criteria were

permitted to apply and to compete with open market candidates.

The G.O. dated 13.07.1995 was never published in the official

Gazette nor the recruitment rules were amended; however, the

recruitment did take place by granting 20% vacancies under the

direct recruitment quota to the in-service candidates. The State

Government thereafter issued another G.O. (Ms.) No. 1627 dated

24.10.1996 again providing 20% of the vacancies to in-service

candidates under the direct recruitment quota; however, the G.O.

dated 24.10.1996 was also not published in the official Gazette

nor the recruitment rules were amended. The State Government,

in spite of the fact that recruitment rules were not amended, again

appointed large number of candidates under the 20% quota, to

the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and after realizing its mistake

that the rules have not been amended, issued another G.O. Ms.

No. 4651 dated 10.06.2009 proposing to amend the Rules in

order to grant seniority to in-service candidates recruited under

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 30 of 41

the direct recruitment quota. The G.O. dated 10.06.2009 was

again not published in the official Gazette nor the rules were

amended and seniority was given to the in-service candidates

over and above the directly recruited candidates appointed

through the open market.

16. The State Government finally realizing its mistake issued

G.O. Ms. No. 868 dated 21.11.2017 which is the subject matter

of the present appeals reserving 20% of the vacancies for serving

police personnel and 80% vacancies for open market candidates

for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and also for providing

seniority to the in-service candidates en bloc over and above the

candidates appointed to the service by way of direct recruitment

under 80% of the vacancies. The State Government for the first

time published the G.O. dated 21.11.2017 in the official Gazette

and also amended the recruitment rules. The State Government

not only granted en bloc seniority to the 20% in-service

candidates who were appointed under the direct recruitment

quota over and above the open candidates appointed to service

through open market but the rule was given effect to with

retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 13.07.1995.

17. Various writ petitions were preferred before the High

Court of Madras and the High Court of Madras by way of

common order has upheld the G.O. dated 21.11.2017.

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 31 of 41

18. The facts of the case also reveal that the State Government

has not applied the seniority rule uniformly right from the year

1995 inasmuch as in some of the batches, seniority has been

given to in-service candidates appointed under the 20% quota and

in some of the batches, seniority has also not been given.

However, in the case of R.Ranjith Singh & Ors. Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu & Ors., Writ Petition No. 25263 of 2009 which is the

lead matter, the State Government has granted seniority to

departmental candidates who were recruited under the 20% quota

over and above the directly recruited candidates appointed from

the open market and a common judgment has been passed by the

High Court upholding the G.O. dated 21.11.2017 and the

amendment under the recruitment rules meaning thereby in

respect of 100% direct recruitments to the post of Sub-Inspector

of Police, persons who are in-service candidates and who have

been given liberty to compete under the direct requirement quota

(20%) were placed over and above persons recruited through

open market.

19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has

demonstrated before this Court that the Appellant R.Ranjith

Singh has secured 79.10 marks and he was the first rank holder

and one Santhakumari who was a departmental candidate has

secured 69.27 marks; however, Santhakumari has been placed

over and above the persons who have obtained higher marks and

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 32 of 41

in fact all the departmental candidates have obtained less marks

than the open category candidates under the direct requirement

quota and have been placed over and above the persons who have

obtained more marks only because they are the in-service

candidates. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an

action on the part of the Respondent State is against the settled

canons of law. In respect of fixation of seniority of direct

recruitments, the unamended rule i.e Rule 25 was very clear

which provided for fixation of seniority with reference to the rank

assigned by the appointing authority in the list of selected

candidates. It is unfortunate that the State Government has

amended Rule 25 by G.O. dated 21.11.2017 by giving it

retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 13.07.1995. The State

Government has certainly issued various executive directions

from time to time for appointment under the direct recruitment

quota providing reservation to in-service candidates to the extent

of 20%; however, the rules were never amended till 21.11.2017.

It is a well settled proposition of law that executive instructions

cannot supplant the statutory rules. They can supplement/clarify

the statutory rules. In the present case, the executive instructions

issued from time to time have in fact supplanted the statutory

rules and such a process is unheard of in the field of service

jurisprudence.

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 33 of 41

20. This Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and

Another Vs. M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills 1992 Supp (1)

Supreme Court Cases 150 has held that executive instructions can

supplement a Statute or cover areas which the Statute does not

extend. They cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or

whittle down their effect. In the present case, the G.O. dated

13.07.1995, G.O. dated 24.10.1996 and G.O. dated 10.06.2009

are executive instructions and based upon the executive

instructions, the statutory provisions as contained under the

statutory rules could not have been made applicable as has been

done in the present case.

21. This Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh and Others Vs.

The State of Uttarakhand and Others 2023 INSC 1024 has held

as under:

“34. It can thus be seen that it is a trite law that

the Government cannot amend or supersede

statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if

the rules are silent on any particular point, it can

fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue

instructions not inconsistent with the rules already

framed. It is a settled proposition of law that an

authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/

executive instructions in contravention of the

statutory rules. However, instructions can be issued

only to supplement the statutory rules but not to

supplant it.

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 34 of 41

This Court has again held in the aforesaid case that the

Government cannot issue executive instructions in contravention

of the statutory rules.

22. The State Government without amending the recruitment

rules right from 1995 continued with the appointing process

under the direct recruitment category by appointing in-service

candidates and in the considered opinion of this Court, such a

recourse was not available to the State Government without

amending the recruitment rules. However, in light of the fact that

the persons have been promoted in 1995 and thereafter also, this

Court is not touching their promotion orders. The State

Government without amending recruitment rules till 2017

continued to appoint Sub-Inspector of Police from Head

Constables serving the police department and all such

recruitments were made without amending the recruitment rules.

The recruitment rules were amended only in the year 2017. In

the considered opinion of this Court, the amendment to the

recruitment rules in the year 2017 to the extent it provides for

20% reservation under the direct recruitment category to the in-

service candidates, does not warrant any interference. However,

the amendment brought vide G.O. dated 21.11.2017 amending

Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules, which provides for grant of

seniority to all in-service candidates over and above candidates

recruited from the open market is certainly violative of Articles

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 35 of 41

14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be

struck down by this Court.

23. The State Government after realizing its mistake has gone

to the extent of giving retrospective effect in the matter of

seniority meaning thereby giving a preferential treatment to the

in-service candidates who are less meritorious and who have

already been granted a concession by permitting them to appear

under the 20% quota earmarked for them. In the considered

opinion of this Court, the action of the State Government in

amending the recruitment rules with retrospective effect is

certainly violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution

of India. A statute which takes away the right of an individual

with retrospective effect deserves to be set aside by this Court.

24. The judgment relied upon by the respondent in the case of

State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Raj Kumar and

Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680 is distinguishable on facts and

does not help the respondents in any manner.

25. This Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others

Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Others (2020)

19 Supreme Court Cases 604, was dealing with the seniority issue

of District Judges promoted through Limited Competitive

Examination. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that inter se

placing of candidates selected through Limited Competitive

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 36 of 41

Examination has to be based upon merit. Paras 48, 49 and 50 of

the aforesaid judgment read as under:

“48. While considering Question 40.4.(D), it is

relevant to notice the emphasis placed by this Court

in All India Judges Assn. (3) [All India Judges Assn.

(3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC

(L&S) 508] while directing that 25% of the posts in

the cadre of the District Judge be filled through

LCE. It was stated in para 27 that there should be

an incentive amongst relatively junior and other

officers to improve and to compete with each other

so as to excel and get accelerated promotion. In

para 28, the relevant direction again stressed that

25% quota for promotion through LCE be “strictly

on the basis of merit”.

49. Rule 31(2) of the 2010 Rules also uses the

expression “strictly on the basis of merit” while

dealing with posts to be filled in through LCE. The

merit is to be assessed in terms of the scheme laid

down in the relevant Schedule. After considering

various parameters stated in the said Schedule, the

successful candidates are selected on the basis of

merit. The list of successful candidates becomes the

basis for final selection subject to qualifying

parameters such as suitability, medical fitness, etc.

However, placing reliance on Rule 47(4), the

Committee in its Report dated 15-3-2019 held that

the inter se seniority of persons promoted to the

District Judge cadre in the same year ought to be

the same as it was in the posts held by them at the

time of promotion. If the list is to be drawn up

according to merit, it is possible that the last person

in the list of selectees may be the seniormost and

going by the Report of the Committee, if all the

selectees are promoted in the same year such last

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 37 of 41

person may as well be at the top of the list of

promotees through LCE. In that event, the seniority

shall become the governing criteria and the

excellence on part of a comparatively junior

candidate may recede in the background. Instead of

giving incentive to comparatively junior and other

officers, the entire examination process will stand

reduced to a mere qualifying examination rather

than a competitive examination affording

opportunity to meritorious candidates. The criteria

shall then become seniority subject to passing the

LCE. The direction issued in All India Judges Assn.

(3) [All India Judges Assn. (3) v. Union of India,

(2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 508] to afford

an incentive to meritorious candidates regardless of

their seniority would not thus be carried out. The

general principle appearing in Rule 47(4) must,

therefore, give way to the special dispensation in

Rule 31(2) of the 2010 Rules.

50. In our view, the High Court in its Report dated

15-3-2019 completely failed to appreciate the true

character of LCE and reservation of certain quota

for that category. We, therefore, accept the

submissions made by the learned advocate for the

petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 498 of 2018

and Diary No. 13252 of 2019 and while answering

Question 40.4.(D) declare that the inter se

placement of the candidates selected through LCE

must be based on merit and not on the basis of the

seniority in the erstwhile cadre. The said writ

petitions are allowed to that extent.”

In the aforesaid case, there was a dispute in respect of inter-se

seniority of persons who were appointed to the services under the

Limited Departmental Examination. The High Court granted

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 38 of 41

seniority based upon their past services; however, this Court in

the aforesaid cases also held that once an appointment to service

is made based upon a competitive examination, the seniority has

to be maintained on the basis of performance in the examination

and not by taking into account the past service alone.

26. Again, this Court in the case of Prem Narayan Singh and

Others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 7 Supreme

Court Cases 649 while dealing with promotions based upon

Limited Competitive Examination has held that the seniority has

to be based upon the merit and not on the basis of seniority in the

feeder cadre.

27. In the present case, the direct recruitment has been done to

80% of the vacancies through candidates from open market and

20% of the vacancies under the direct requirement quota from in-

service candidates and pre-amended Rule 25 provides for

fixation of seniority with reference to the rank assigned by the

appointing authority in the select list meaning thereby only on the

basis of marks obtained by each and every individual candidate.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that all

seniority list(s) right from 1995 deserve to be re-casted by

assigning proper seniority to the candidates who have been

appointed from the open market as well as from in-service

candidates solely on the basis of ranks assigned to the selected

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 39 of 41

candidates by the appointing authority on the basis of marks

obtained by them in the examination on the basis of which they

have been selected and appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of

Police. There is no other process which can be followed in the

present case.

28. Resultantly, the GO dated 21.11.2017 which grants

seniority to the departmental candidates over and above the

candidates who have been recruited from open market is hereby

quashed and amendment to Rule 25 sub rule (a) also is hereby

struck down being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India, meaning thereby, the Respondents shall

issue a fresh gradation list solely on the basis of marks obtained

by candidates in the examination on the basis of which they have

been recruited to the services. The Appeals stand disposed of

with the following directions:

a) The respondents shall recast all gradation list issued from

time to time in respect of direct recruitment which includes

20% in-service candidates recruited directly to the post of

Sub-Inspector of Police by granting seniority on the basis

of marks obtained in the qualifying examination/selection

process. The exercise of recasting and issuance of revised

gradation list be positively concluded within a period of 60

days from today.

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 40 of 41

b) The respondent State shall not revert any officer who has

been given further promotion on the basis of the seniority

list already issued by the Department from 1995; however,

the respondent State shall not issue any promotion order in

respect of departmental candidates till the revised seniority

list is issued as aforesaid.

c) That, after issuance of revised seniority list, the State

Government shall consider the cases of all departmental

candidates for promotion to the next higher post keeping

in view the promotions granted to the juniors (based upon

the revised seniority list) and the exercise of granting

promotions be concluded in respect of the direct recruitees

(80%) quota within a period of two months from the date

of issuance of revised seniority list.

d) The direct recruits, in case they are found fit for promotion

to the next higher post will be entitled for notional

promotion, fixation of seniority and all other consequential

benefits except back wages on grant of promotion to the

next higher post.

e) The State Government shall hereinafter conduct one

common examination for 100% direct recruitment for

appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police which

includes 80% from open market and 20% from in-service

candidates and their seniority shall be assigned based upon

SLP (C) Nos. 5137-38 of 2021 & Anr. Page 41 of 41

the marks obtained by individual candidates/rank assigned

by appointing authority in the list of selected candidates.

29. With the aforesaid, the appeals stand disposed of. No

orders as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

……………………………………J.

[B. V. NAGARATHNA]

……………………………………J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ]

NEW DELHI

May 01, 2025.

Reference cases

Jaiveer Singh and Others Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and...

02:00 mins | 1 | 01 Jan, 1970

Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. High Court of Judicature...

01:59 mins | 0 | 29 Apr, 2020

State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. Vs. G.S. Dall and...

mins | 0 | 19 Sep, 1990

Description

Supreme Court Settles Police Seniority Dispute: Merit Over Retrospective Amendments

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in *R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.*, decisively resolving a protracted **Police Seniority Dispute** and confronting a significant **Retrospective Amendment Challenge**. This crucial ruling, now accessible on CaseOn, underscores the primacy of merit in recruitment and the limitations of retrospective rule changes, particularly when they impact fundamental rights. It’s a must-read for anyone following developments in service law.

Issue

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a retrospective amendment to the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 (Rule 25(a)), granting *en bloc* seniority to departmental candidates (Head Constables) recruited under a 20% direct recruitment quota, over more meritorious open market candidates, was constitutionally valid. Specifically, the Court had to determine if such an amendment, applied retrospectively from 1995, violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Rule

The case revolved around the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 (referred to as “1955 Rules”), framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 3 outlines three modes of recruitment: transfer, promotion, and direct recruitment. Crucially, Rule 25 (unamended) stipulated that seniority for direct recruits should be fixed based on their rank in the list of approved candidates, determined by marks obtained in the final examination. Legal principles relevant to the case also included:

**Executive Instructions vs. Statutory Rules:** The established legal position that administrative instructions cannot override or supplant statutory rules, though they can supplement them where rules are silent.
**Retrospective Amendments:** The power of the state to amend rules retrospectively, but with the caveat that such amendments cannot take away vested rights or violate constitutional provisions like Articles 14 (equality before law), 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty, including fair treatment in employment).
**Seniority Based on Merit:** Precedents emphasizing that where recruitment is through a competitive examination, seniority should generally be based on merit/rank in that examination, not on prior service or *en bloc* preferences that disadvantage more meritorious candidates.

Analysis

The genesis of the dispute lay in a policy decision by the Tamil Nadu Government to address stagnation among Head Constables. In 1995, G.O. (Ms.) No. 1054 introduced a 20% reservation for in-service constabulary candidates within the direct recruitment quota for Sub-Inspectors. Critically, this G.O. also stipulated that these in-service candidates would be placed *above* open market candidates in the seniority list for that year. However, this G.O. was an executive instruction and was never officially published in the Gazette, nor were the 1955 Rules amended at that time. Subsequent G.O.s in 1996 and 2009 attempted to formalize this, but similarly failed to be notified or amend the rules effectively.

Despite the lack of proper rule amendment, the recruitment and seniority fixation continued based on these executive instructions. The turning point came with G.O. (Ms.) No. 868, dated 21.11.2017. This G.O. finally amended Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules with *retrospective effect* from 13.07.1995, formally granting *en bloc* seniority to the 20% departmental quota candidates over open market direct recruits, regardless of their individual merit in the selection examination. This meant candidates who scored lower marks were placed senior to those with higher marks, simply because they came from the departmental quota.

Aggrieved by this, open market direct recruits challenged the G.O. before the High Court of Madras. The High Court, however, upheld the G.O., reasoning that in-service candidates deserved preference due to their experience and age, believing this would balance the interests of both groups. This decision was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the sequence of events. It noted that the State Government had initially relied on executive instructions (G.O.s from 1995, 1996, 2009) to implement a policy that was not supported by amended statutory rules. The Court reiterated a well-settled principle of law, citing cases like *State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills* and *Jaiveer Singh and Others Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Others*, that executive instructions can only supplement, not supplant, statutory rules. Until the 2017 amendment, the government's actions lacked a proper legal basis in the rules.

The Court then focused on the retrospective effect of the 2017 amendment. It found that granting *en bloc* seniority to less meritorious departmental candidates over more meritorious open market candidates, retrospectively from 1995, was a clear violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21. Such an action essentially took away the vested right of meritorious candidates to seniority based on their performance in a competitive examination. The Court emphasized that seniority in direct recruitment, especially through competitive examinations, must be based on merit and rank assigned by the recruiting authority. References to *Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Others* and *Prem Narayan Singh and Others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh* reinforced the principle that seniority in competitive recruitment should be merit-based, not on previous service or arbitrary preferences.

For legal professionals analyzing complex rulings like this, CaseOn.in offers invaluable support. Its 2-minute audio briefs provide a concise yet comprehensive overview of the judgment's key aspects, helping busy lawyers and students quickly grasp the nuances of the *Police Seniority Dispute* and the implications of the *Retrospective Amendment Challenge* without sifting through lengthy documents.

While the Court upheld the 20% reservation quota for in-service candidates as a policy decision, it found the retrospective application of seniority rules that prioritized less meritorious candidates to be unconstitutional.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed G.O. (Ms.) No. 868 dated 21.11.2017, specifically striking down the amendment to Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules that granted *en bloc* seniority to departmental candidates over open market recruits. The Court held that this retrospective amendment violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The appeals were disposed of with the following directions:

The respondents (State Government) must recast all gradation lists for direct recruitment (including the 20% in-service quota) issued since 1995, strictly based on the marks obtained by candidates in the qualifying examination/selection process. This exercise is to be completed within 60 days.
No officer who has already received further promotion based on the previously issued seniority lists from 1995 will be reverted. However, no new promotion orders for departmental candidates are to be issued until the revised seniority list is finalized.
After the revised seniority list is issued, the State Government must consider cases for promotion to the next higher post for all departmental candidates, taking into account promotions granted to juniors (based on the revised list). This exercise should conclude within two months of the revised seniority list's issuance.
Direct recruits (from the 80% open market quota) who are found fit for promotion to the next higher post based on the new seniority list will be entitled to notional promotion, seniority fixation, and all other consequential benefits, *except back wages*.
Henceforth, the State Government must conduct a single common examination for 100% direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector, incorporating both the 80% open market and 20% in-service quotas. Seniority will be assigned based on the marks/rank obtained by individual candidates in this common selection process.

Final Summary of the Ruling

The Supreme Court's judgment in *R. Ranjith Singh & Ors.* unequivocally upholds the principle of merit-based seniority in direct recruitment. It reaffirms that executive instructions cannot supersede statutory rules and that retrospective amendments that infringe upon fundamental rights, especially by undermining merit for promotional prospects, are unconstitutional. The decision mandates a complete overhaul of seniority lists for Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Inspectors from 1995 onwards, ensuring that deserving candidates receive their rightful place based on examination performance.

Why This Judgment is an Important Read for Lawyers and Students

This judgment serves as a critical precedent in several areas of service law:

Constitutional Law and Service Jurisprudence

It vividly illustrates the application of Articles 14, 16, and 21 in the context of public employment, particularly concerning seniority fixation. It highlights how arbitrary or discriminatory rules, even if retrospectively enacted, can be challenged on constitutional grounds.
Hierarchical Relationship Between Rules and Executive Orders

The ruling offers a clear exposition on the hierarchy between statutory rules framed under Article 309 and executive instructions. It is a stark reminder that administrative orders cannot fill gaps or amend rules in a manner inconsistent with established law.
Retrospective Legislation Challenges

For students and lawyers studying legislative powers, this case is an excellent example of the limitations on retrospective amendments, especially when they adversely affect vested rights or create an unconstitutional class of beneficiaries based on arbitrary criteria.
Merit Principle in Recruitment

The judgment reinforces the importance of the merit principle in competitive examinations for public service. It underscores that once a competitive process is established, seniority should predominantly flow from performance in that process, preventing less meritorious candidates from leapfrogging those who performed better.
Practical Implications for Service Matters

It provides practical guidance on how courts approach historical seniority disputes, offering a roadmap for rectifying past errors without causing undue disruption (e.g., no reversion of already promoted officers). This balance between justice and stability is a key takeaway.

Disclaimer

All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for specific legal guidance tailored to their situation. CaseOn.in and its authors are not liable for any action taken or not taken based on the information presented here.

Legal Notes

Add a Note....