Supreme Court Quashes Rule Granting En Bloc Seniority To Departmental Sub-Inspectors; Direct-Recruit Gradation To Be Recast

A two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard appeals challenging fixation of seniority in the Sub-Inspector cadre of the Tamil Nadu Police. The appeals arose out of writ petitions before the Madras High Court and challenged executive orders and subsequent amendments that placed departmental candidates selected under a 20% in‑service quota above open‑market direct recruits in the same year.

The Court allowed the appeals in part and struck down the provision in Rule 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 — as amended by G.O. dated 21.11.2017 — to the extent it en bloc fixed seniority of departmental direct‑recruitees above open‑market direct recruits. The Court held that seniority for direct recruitment had to follow the rank assigned by the appointing authority on the basis of marks obtained in the selection process, and that executive instructions could not supplant statutory rules. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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.” The judgment also stated that “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 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be struck down.”

Background The dispute arose after the State issued a series of executive orders beginning with G.O.(Ms.) No.1054 dated 13.07.1995 which reserved 20% of direct‑recruit vacancies for constabulary (in‑service) candidates and stated that the inter‑se seniority of those selected “would be above those selected in the open competition in the year.” Subsequent G.O.s in 1996 and 2009 sought to amend rules but were not notified in the Gazette; finally G.O.(Ms.) No.868 dated 21.11.2017 was published and Rule 25(a) was amended retrospectively from 13.07.1995 to place departmental direct‑recruitees above open recruits in seniority. Many departmental candidates had already been appointed or promoted over the intervening years.

Direct‑recruited candidates challenged the retrospective fixation of seniority before the Madras High Court, which upheld the executive action and observed that in‑service candidates had hands‑on experience and deserved preference. The petitioners before the Supreme Court contended that pre‑amendment Rule 25 required seniority among direct recruits to be determined by merit (marks in the qualifying examination) and that executive orders could not override statutory rules; they invoked Articles 14, 16 and 21. The State and departmental respondents defended the executive orders as permissible administrative action, highlighted administrative reliance and existing promotions, and warned of upheaval if lists were recast.

The Supreme Court examined precedent (including authority that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules) and concluded that while the State could reserve 20% for in‑service candidates, the retrospective en bloc elevation of their seniority over open recruits was impermissible. The Court quashed the seniority provision in G.O. dated 21.11.2017 insofar as it granted en bloc seniority to departmental direct‑recruitees and directed the State to recast all gradation/ seniority lists relating to direct recruitment (including batches with 20% in‑service candidates) solely on the basis of marks/rank assigned by the appointing authority. The Court preserved promotions already granted — it directed that no officer be reverted as a consequence of this order — and issued timelines and consequential directions: recast gradation lists within 60 days; consider promotions afresh within two months of the revised list; allow notional promotion and consequential benefits (except back wages) where applicable; and conduct a common examination for 100% direct recruitment (80% open market + 20% in‑service) with seniority assigned by performance.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 612 Case Title: R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Singaravelan, Senior Counsel (referred to in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu and departmental respondents (names not specified in the judgment)