Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

K.K.Manjula Vs The Secretary of Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

Home
Madras HC
2024
K.K.Manjula Vs The Secretary of GovernmentK.K.Manjula v. The Secretary of Government

Allowed

K.K.Manjula v. The Secretary of Government

Madras HC30 Jul 2024WP/22479/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directly recruited Sub-Registrars challenged a seniority fixation order placing ad hoc appointee promotees above them based on initial appointment date. The court quashed the order as contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in K.Madalaimuthu and directed re-fixation of seniority from dates of regularisation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.06.2015 quashed; respondents directed to re-fix seniority per K.Madalaimuthu within two months; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 25.06.2015 quashed; respondents directed to re-fix seniority per K.Madalaimuthu within two months; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order fixing seniority of promotee/transferee Sub-Registrars from their date of initial appointment, despite K.Madalaimuthu requiring reckoning from date of regularisation, could

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Seniority of ad hoc appointed/transferee Sub-Registrars must be reckoned from the date of regularisation of their services, not from the date of initial appointment, as held by the Supreme Court in K.Madalaimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 6 SCC 558. An authority's order re-fixing seniority from the initial appointment date, in disregard of that judgment and earlier directions of the High Court, was unsustainable and was quashed; the writ petition was allowed and seniority directed to be re-fixed in tune with K.Madalaimuthu within two months.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 30.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

W.P.No.22479 of 2015 &

M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015

1.K.K.Manjula

2.A.Ramesh

3.M.Muthukannan

4.K.Meenakumari

5.S.Sudaroli

6.A.Sureshkumar

7.M.Raja

8.V.Chinnaraj

9.M.Manivannan

10.P.Kannan

11.M.Selvakumar

1/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

12.P.Sakthivel

13.A.S.R.Selvanarayanasamy 14.R.Periasamy 15.K.Raja 16.T.Poongodi 17.S.Sivaraju 18.V.Ramesh 19.K.Asokan 20.M.Paul Pandi ...Petitioners Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009. 2.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600028. 3.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Chennai – 600002.

2/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

4.Vadivazhagi

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings under letter No.24371/A1/2015 including the order dated 25.06.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to effect fixation of seniority in the cadres of SubRegistrars Grade-II, Sub Registrars Grade-I, District Registrars and Assistant Inspectors General of Registration, taking the date of appointment of the transferees, appointed as Sub-Registrars Grade II under order dated 07.06.2002 bearing reference No.64749/A3/95 as the said date that is 07.06.2002 and the date of appointment of the petitioners, as Sub Registrars Grade II as 14.09.2000 and 20.08.2001.

For Petitioners : Mr. V.G.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr. LSM. Hasan Fizal 1 & 2 Additional Government Pleader

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/15

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

For Respondents : No Appearance 3 & 4

O R D E R

This is a case where despite orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and clear directions of this Court the 2^nd respondent has decided to ignore the directions of the Court and arrive at a decision which is clearly in conflict with the earlier orders of this Court.

The narration of facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition would highlight the above fact. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is the fixation of seniority inter – se between the promotees / transferees and the petitioners herein who are directly recruited Sub Registrars.

The petitioners before this Court are direct recruitees as Sub

4/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

Registrars in respect of vacancies that arose during the years 1996 – 2000. The 4^th respondent and others like her were originally appointed on adhoc basis and not against a regular vacancy under proceedings dated 03.11.1995. Therefore, their appointment can only be considered as appointment under Rule 10 a (i) (1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, herein after called the Rules. Their services had been regularised in the said post only on 07.06.2002. Therefore, the 4^th respondent and others had been regularised in the post of Sub Registrars only in the year 2002, whereas the petitioners had been directly recruited between the years 1996 – 2000. However, these promotees were placed above the petitioners in seniority.

The petitioners had made several representations and had ultimately filed W.P.No.12328 of 2014 for direction to the respondents to implement the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in K.Madalaimuthu's case reported in 2006 (6) SCC 558 .

5/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

This Court by order dated 31.03.2015 was pleased to direct the 2^nd respondent to issue notice to all the Sub Registrars Grade II and I and other affected parties including petitioners and pass fresh orders determining seniority and inter se seniority in the post of Sub Registrar Grade II and I, District Registrar, Assistant Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Inspector General of Registration, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It was made clear that the direction would not affect the promotion already made to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration.

However, the 2^nd respondent chose to re-write the orders of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and rejected the request of the petitioners

by stating that for fixing seniority the date of initial appointment has to be considered. Once they get regularised the regularisation takes effect from the date of appointment. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed.

6/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

A counter has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents would submit that the promotees / Sub registrars were not appointed under Rule 10 (a) (1) (i) of the General Rules but had been appointed under Rule 2 (a) (ii) of the Rules. It is their contention that according to Rule 35 (aa) of the Rules, the seniority of a person in service has to be determined by the date on which he/she is initially appointed to the service. Therefore, the promottee Sub Registrars who had been appointed in the year 1995 and who were regularised on the date of appointment 07.06.2002 are therefore deemed to be promoted earlier in point of time than the petitioners. This is the main crux of the defense that has been raised by the respondents.

Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

A perusal of the order dated 03.11.1995 would indicate that

list of assistants who had qualified for consideration to the post of sub

7/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

registrar II in the year 1995 – 1996 had been published. The order would indicate that the list consisted of 173 persons. The note appended to this order clearly stipulated that the inclusion of their names in the list would not grant them automatic appointment as per Rule 4 (d). Thereafter, on 07.06.2002 under G.O.Ms.No.64749, the 2^nd respondent had issued an order in and by which the 4^th respondent and others were regularised. The order reads as follows:

“ghu;it 1y; fz;l eltof;iffs; K:yk; btspaplg;gl;l 181 bfhz;l gl;oaypy; t/vz;/1 Kjy; 137 tiuapyhd egu;fspy; t/vz;/58 jpU/nfh/ghyRe;juk; kw;Wk; t/vz;/68

jpU/rp/jhnkhjud; t/vz;/11 vk;/gHdp/ t/vz/124 jpU/eh/ntjue;jk; jtpu v";rpa midtUf;Fk; 2k; rhu;gjpthsuhf epakdk; bra;ag;gl;L tpl;ldu;/ ,itfis fUj;jpy; bfhz;L jkpH;ehL gjpt[ rhu;epiyg; gzp tpjp ($p)d; go 95 ? 96k; Mz;ow;Fupa ,uz;lhk; epiy rhu;gjpthsu; Mf epakdk; bra;ag;glj; jFjp bgw;w cjtpahsu;fspy; Kiwahd gl;oay; fPH;fz;lthW btspaplg;gLfpwJ/

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8/15

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

Thereafter, since conflicts had arisen with reference to the seniority list prepared between the direct recruitees and the temporary recruitees, the writ petitions had been filed which ultimately transferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgement reported in 2006 6 SCC 558 –

K.Madalaimuthu and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, had clearly observed as follows:

In the instant case the authorities, on the

strength of the several Government Orders giving

retrospective effect to the regularization of the promotees,

have taken the date of initial appointment of such promotees as the starting point of their seniority. In our view, such a course of action was erroneous and contrary

to the well established principles relating to determination of seniority. In our view, the High Court appears to have taken an erroneous view in the matter in

9/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

holding that the period during which the promotees had initially discharged the duties of District Registrars, though appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) was to be counted for determining their seniority.

26.We therefore, set aside the order passed by the High court and direct the concerned respondents to redetermine seniority of the appellants in relation to the promotees after reckoning the starting point of seniority

of such promotees from the date of regularization of

their services.

Despite such a categoric order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the petitioners who are direct recruitees and who were not considered had moved this Court in W.P.No.11292 of 2014 etc., This Court after extracting history of the case and after considering the Judgement in K.Madalaimuthu's case had ultimately passed the

following order:

10/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

“33. In the result, the impugned order dated 12

August 2014 is set aside. The Inspector General of Registration is directed to issue notice to all the concerned Sub Registrars Grade II and Sub Registrars Grade I and all other affected parties including the petitioner in W.P.No.17087 of 2014 and pass fresh orders determining the seniority and inter se seniority in the post

of Sub Registrar Grade II, Sub Registrar Grade I, District Registrar, Assistant Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Inspector General of Registration. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, I make it clear that this direction would not affect the promotion already made to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration vide order in G.O.Ms.No.36, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H)

Department dated 3 March 2015.

11/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

Despite such a categoric order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and directions by this Court the 2^nd respondent in the impugned order has once again stated that seniority has to be determined from the date of appointment in service which runs contrary to paragraph No.25 and 26 of the Judgement in K.Madalaimuthu's case. The 2^nd respondent has by passing the above impugned order practically reviewed the orders passed by both the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the direction issued by this court. The impugned order also reflects the cursory manner in which the Authority concerned has brushed aside the orders passed by the highest Court of this country as also this Court.

Therefore, the impugned order cannot stand a minute's scrutiny and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The exercise to re-fix the seniority in tune with the judgement in K.Madalaimuthu's case shall be effected within a

12/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

30.07.2024

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan

To 1.The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009. 2.The Inspector General of Registration, 13/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600028.

3.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Chennai – 600002.

P.T. ASHA, J,

kan

14/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.22479 of 2015

W.P.No. 22479 of 2015

30.07.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15/15

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the impugned order fixing seniority of promotee/transferee Sub-Registrars from their date of initial appointment, despite K.Madalaimuthu requiring reckoning from date of regularisation, could

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

K.Madalaimuthu and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and OthersApplied¶12
2006 (6) SCC 558 · Who else cites this

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service RulesRule 10(a)(i)(1)Rule 35(aa)

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
K.K.Manjula
petitioner
A.Ramesh
petitioner
M.Muthukannan
petitioner
K.Meenakumari
petitioner
S.Sudaroli
respondent
The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai

Coram

AI extract

P.T. Asha

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 30 Jul 2024 · July
Registered: 23 Jul 2015
Case no.: WP/22479/2015
CNR: HCMA010257812015
Topic: Service and Employment
Bench: P.t. Asha
Disposal: ALLOWED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from P.t. Asha

M.Mahalingam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.
29 Jul 2024
Vijhayalakkshme Vs The Commissioner
29 Jul 2024
Mr.Tarmon E.Fernandez, Vs The Secretary to Government
29 Jul 2024
Tamil Nadu State Construction Vs The Government of Tamilnadu
30 Jul 2024
P.Mohanraj Vs The Regional Director
30 Jul 2024
Tmt. K.Dhanalakshmi, Vs The Chairman
30 Jul 2024

Cite this judgement

K.K.Manjula v. The Secretary of Government, WP/22479/2015 (MAD), decided on 30 July 2024.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

K.Madalaimuthu and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and OthersApplied¶12

Open Authorities

Statutes3

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service RulesRule 10(a)(i)(1) · Rule 35(aa)

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

P.T. Asha

Parties & counsel