Dismissed¶90

S.Rajamuthu, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC11 Feb 2026WA/1272/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority fixation; direct recruits versus promotees; Inspector of Factories; TNPSC recruitment notification dated 12.09.1990; interim stay in O.A. No. 3840 of 1990 before Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal; selection list published 1995; appointments 12.12.1995; recruitment notification not a basis for seniority; right to seniority arises on selection culminating in order of appointment; date of appointment as basis of seniority; borne into cadre essential; retrospective seniority claim untenable; delay and laches left open; representation of 2002; Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules three-year limit for seniority representations; W.P. No. 21019 of 2005; writ appeal dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

A recruitment notification would not constitute a basis for claiming seniority into government service.

S.Rajamuthu, Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶90

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, direct recruits selected through the notification dated 12.09.1990 issued by the Tamil Public Service Commission for the post of Inspector of Factories, are entitled to have their seniority fixed as a batch and to be ranked immediately above respondents 3 to 11 (promotees) based on the recruitment notification, notwithstanding that their appointments issued only on 12.12.1995 after disposal of O.A.No.3840 of 1990. +1 more

¶58

Court's answer

A recruitment notification would not constitute a basis for claiming seniority into government service.

¶83

Ratio / Principle

Only a recruitment process that culminates in the selection of a candidate and proceeds to an order of appointment provides the right to claim seniority in government service.

¶83

Key takeaways

Since the appellants were not selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and no appointment order had been issued when the Tribunal's interim stay operated, they cannot claim retrospective seniority merely on the basis of the recruitment notification dated 12.09.1990; the claim for seniority based on the 1990 notification is untenable.ratio¶82
Being borne into the cadre is an essential requirement for fixation of seniority, and even as per the Rules seniority is to be fixed based on the date of appointment; the appellants were not borne into the cadre.ratio¶89

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan JJ.) dismisses W.A. No. 1272 of 2010 filed by five directly recruited Inspectors of Factories who sought fixation of seniority as the batch of direct recruits selected through the TNPSC notification dated 12.09.1990, ranked immediately above the promotee respondents 3 to 11. Held: a recruitment notification by itself would not constitute a basis for claiming seniority in government service; the right to claim seniority arises only where the recruitment process culminates in selection followed by an order of appointment. The appellants were not even selected when the Tribunal's interim stay in O.A. No. 3840 of 1990 (disposed of in 1994) restrained publication of the selection list, and were appointed only on 12.12.1995; their claim to retrospective seniority based on the 1990 notification is therefore untenable. Being borne into the cadre is an essential requirement for fixation of seniority, and seniority is to be fixed based on the date of appointment. The delay/laches objection (representation of 2002 against a seniority list said to have been published on 07.10.1995, disputed as 2001) was expressly left undecided. The writ order dated 13.04.2010 in W.P. No. 21019 of 2005 (renumbered from O.A. No. 3393 of 2003 before the abolished Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal) was not interfered with; appeal dismissed, no costs, connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

2026:MHC:585

¶2

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 11-02-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶9

WA No. 1272 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶10

S.Rajamuthu, S/o.Subbu, Inspector Of Factories, Tiruvarur.

¶11

S.Poongodi, D/o.Govindan, Inspector Of Factories, Coimbatore.

¶12

Dinakaran, S/o.Kandaswamy, Inspector Of Factories, Hosur.

¶13

G.Thirumuruga Balasubramanian, S/o.Govindan, Inspector Of Factories, Dindukal.

¶14

M.V.Senthilkumar, S/o.Veluswamy, Inspector Of Factories, Tirunelveli.

¶15

..Appellant(s)

¶16

¶17

The Secretary To Govt., Labour & Employment Dept., Fort St. George, Ch-9.

¶18

The Chief Inspector Of Factories, Chepauk, Ch-5.

¶19

Erai Arul, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 23, Kajannagar, 3rd Street, Trichy-20.

¶20

N.Jeyakumar, Inspector Of Factories, Madurai.

¶21

__________ Page1 of 10

¶22

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

¶23

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶24

K.Kaliannan,

¶25

Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, II Circle, TTC Buildings, Kavundampalayam, Coimbatore-30.

¶26

S.Ponsingh Mohanram, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, III Divn., 617, Annasalai, Bharathkumar Bhavan, Chennai.

¶27

S.Muthukumar, 2/535 B.Manoranjitham St., Selvanthi Street (inside) 6th Main Road, Gomathipuram, Madurai-20.

¶28

B.Alagesan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 16, First Floor, Krishnapalayam Road, Karungalpalayam, Erode-638003.

¶29

G.Muralidharan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 127 B, 4th Cross, Subbayamudaliar Layout, Tutikorine-628003.

¶30

S.Durairaj,

¶31

Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, No.14, Perumanallure Road, Tirupur-2.

¶32

R.Jeyakuma, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, Arani Road, Sankaranpalayam, Vellore-632001.

¶33

S.Ambalavannan,

¶34

Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 6, State Bank Colony, Dindigul-7.

¶35

Manoharan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 19, Kalimuthu St., Virudhunagar-626001.

¶36

Jegadesan,

¶37

Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 7, High Ground, 8th Cross, Maharaja Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627011.

¶38

__________ Page2 of 10

¶39

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

¶40

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶41

B.Padmanaban,

¶42

Inspector Of Factories, 3rd Circle, 617, Annasalai, Bharathkumar Bhavan, Chennai.

¶43

A.R.Baskaran, Inspector Of Factories, 4th Circle, 617, Annasalai, Bharathkumar Bhavan, Chennai.

¶44

K.Chidambaranathan, O/o.Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 76, First St., Arulalantha Nagar, Tanjor-613007.

¶45

K.Arul,

¶46

Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 525, Cross Cut Road, Coimbatore-641012.

¶47

Manoharan,

¶48

Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, Hig Sipcot, Lal Compound, Hosur, Krishnagiri.

¶49

V.A.Appavusamraj, Inspector Of Factories, 7, High Ground, 8th Cross, Maharaja Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627011.

¶50

B.Sundaram, Dy. Chief Inspector Factories, Arani Road, Sankaranpalayam, Vellore 632001. ..Respondent(s)

¶51

For Appellant(s): Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan

¶52

For Respondent(s): Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, SGP for R1 & 2. Mr.M.Saravanakumar for Mr.R.S. Pandiyaraj for R5, R8, R18 & R21. Mr.V.Rangrajan for R12. Mrs.Sasikala for R15, R16 & R20. Mr.V.Ravikumar for R9 & R11. Mr.P.Chandrasekaran for R13 & R14 . No Appearance for R3, R4, R6, R17, R10, R17 & R19

¶53

Page3 of 10

¶54

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

¶55

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶58

The present intra-Court Appeal has been instituted to assail the writ order dated 13.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.21019/2005. The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The appellants initially filed Original Application in O.A.No.3393 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking the relief of direction to fix the seniority of the appellants as comprised in the batch of direct recruits selected through notification dated 12.09.1990 of the Tamil Public Service Commission and to assign rank immediately above the respondents 3 to 11 in the category of Inspector of Factories. Subsequent to the abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the application was transferred to the High Court of Madras and renumbered as W.P.No.21019 of 2005. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.04.2010, which resulted in filing of the present Appeal.

¶59

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground of delay and laches. The ground on which the writ petition was dismissed is not in consonance with the Service Rules. Recruitment notification was issued on 12.09.1990 for selection and appointment to the post of Inspector of Factories therein. The petitioners participated in the process of selection. Before publication of selection list, the in-service employees who were temporarily holding the post of Inspector of

¶60

Page4 of 10

¶61

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

¶62

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶63

Factories filed an Original Application in O.A.No.3840 of 1990 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and secured an interim stay for publication of selection list in respect of direct recruitment notification. The Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal only in the year 1994 and thereafter, the selection list was published and the petitioners along with other selected candidates were appointed to the post of Inspectors of Factory on 12.12.1995. Therefore, the appellants are not at fault. Due to the interim stay granted by the Tribunal, no selection list was published and consequential appointments were not issued. Due to the interim order granted by the Court, the appellants cannot be denied their right to get seniority based on the recruitment notification. Act of Court should not affect the persons and in the present case, by virtue of an interim order, there was a delay of 4 years in publishing the selection list which resulted in delay in issuing the appointment order. Thus, the appellants are entitled for seniority based on the notification.

¶64

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/promotees would submit that the appellants were not even selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Tribunal granted stay of publication of selection list. Therefore, the appellants, during the relevant point of time, when the interim stay was granted was not selected. Thus, they cannot claim seniority with retrospective effect based on the recruitment notification. That apart, no action was taken during the relevant point of time either by the Department or by the candidates who participated in the process of selection

¶65

Page5 of 10

¶66

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

¶67

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶68

to vacate the stay or to dispose of the Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal.

¶69

Learned Special Government Pleader would oppose by stating that all the promotee employees had retired from service. Only 2 or 3 directly recruited candidates/appellants alone are serving in the Department. Their claim for retrospective seniority based on the recruitment notification cannot be considered since they have not even selected nor borne into the services of the department. Since interim order was granted at the time of selection process and before publication of selection list, question of granting retrospective seniority would not arise at all.

¶70

Learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the seniority list was published on 07.10.1995. The said seniority list remains unchallenged. The representation was submitted by the appellants only in the year 2002 and as per the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules in force, any representation seeking alteration of seniority must be filed within a period of three years from the date of publication of seniority. Therefore, the writ Court has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground of delay.

¶71

This Court considered the respective submissions made between the parties to the lis.

¶72

Page6 of 10

¶73

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

¶74

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶75

The uncontroverted facts between between the parties would show

¶76

that the recruitment notification for direct recruits to the post of Inspector of Factories was published on 12.09.1990. The appellants participated in the process of selection. During the relevant point of time, the in-service employees were promoted temporarily as Inspector of Factories. Those employees filed Original Application challenging the direct recruitment notification before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal granted an interim stay not to publish the selection list. After four years, the Original Application came to be disposed of in the year 1994. Thereafter, the selection list was published by TNPSC and the applicant along with all other directly recruited candidates were appointed on 12.12.1995. Therefore, their seniority was fixed by the department based on their selection list and the appointment order issued in December, 1995.

¶77

The appellants, admittedly, submitted a representation in the year 2002. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the seniority list was published in the year 1995. However, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants dispute the same by stating that the official seniority list was published in the year 2001.

¶78

Be that as it may be. In any event, the appellants were not even selected during the relevant point of time when the Tribunal granted interim stay for publication of selection list. When the appellants were not even

¶79

Page7 of 10

¶80

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

¶81

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶82

selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and no appointment order was issued, now, they cannot claim any retrospective seniority merely based on the recruitment notification which was issued on 12.09.1990. Recruitment

¶83

notification would not constitute a basis for claiming seniority into a government service. The recruitment process culminated into a selection of a candidate and proceeded with an order of appointment alone would provide a right for claiming seniority into government service. This being the principles to be adopted, the very claim set out in the relief sought for by the appellants to grant seniority based on the recruitment notification of the year 1990 is untenable.

¶84

This Court is not inclined to go into the point relating to laches, since there is a dispute between the parties regarding publication of seniority list. On account of efflux of time, scrutinisation of publication of list may not require, since the appellants during relevant point of time in the year 1990, when the interim order was passed by the Tribunal, they was not even selected by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission and admittedly, the selection list was published in the year 1995 and thereafter, an order of appointment was issued on 12.12.1995.

¶85

Pertinently, all the in-service candidates as well as the direct recruited candidate were subsequently promoted. At this length of time, the seniority, if unsettled, would result in larger repercussion. More so, the

¶86

Page8 of 10

¶87

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

¶88

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶89

appellants were not borne into the cadre which is the essential requirement for fixation of seniority. Even as per the Rules, the seniority is to be fixed based on the date of appointment.

¶90

In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any other reasons to interfere with the decision taken by the writ Court for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶91

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 11-02-2026

¶92

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶93

vsi

¶94

¶95

The Secretary To Govt., Labour & Employment Dept., Fort St. George, Ch-9.

¶96

The Chief Inspector Of Factories, Chepauk, Ch-5.

¶97

__________ Page9 of 10

¶98

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

¶99

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶100

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶101

VSI

¶102

WA No. 1272 of 2010

¶103

11-02-2026

¶104

__________ Page10 of 10

¶105

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

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
S.Rajamuthu, S/o.Subbu, Inspector Of Factories, Tiruvarur¶10
G.Rajagopalan (Sr.), M.Muthappan
appellant
S.Poongodi, D/o.Govindan, Inspector Of Factories, Coimbatore¶11
G.Rajagopalan (Sr.), M.Muthappan
appellant
Dinakaran, S/o.Kandaswamy, Inspector Of Factories, Hosur¶12
G.Rajagopalan (Sr.), M.Muthappan
appellant
G.Thirumuruga Balasubramanian, S/o.Govindan, Inspector Of Factories, Dindukal¶13
G.Rajagopalan (Sr.), M.Muthappan
appellant
M.V.Senthilkumar, S/o.Veluswamy, Inspector Of Factories, Tirunelveli¶14
G.Rajagopalan (Sr.), M.Muthappan
respondent
The Secretary To Govt., Labour & Employment Dept., Fort St. George, Ch-9¶17
U.M.Ravichandran
respondent
The Chief Inspector Of Factories, Chepauk, Ch-5¶18
U.M.Ravichandran
respondent
Erai Arul, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 23, Kajannagar, 3rd Street, Trichy-20¶19
respondent
N.Jeyakumar, Inspector Of Factories, Madurai¶20
respondent
K.Kaliannan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, II Circle, TTC Buildings, Kavundampalayam, Coimbatore-30¶24
M.Saravanakumar
respondent
S.Ponsingh Mohanram, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, III Divn., 617, Annasalai, Bharathkumar Bhavan, Chennai¶26
respondent
S.Muthukumar, 2/535 B.Manoranjitham St., Selvanthi Street (inside) 6th Main Road, Gomathipuram, Madurai-20¶27
respondent
B.Alagesan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 16, First Floor, Krishnapalayam Road, Karungalpalayam, Erode-638003¶28
M.Saravanakumar
respondent
G.Muralidharan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 127 B, 4th Cross, Subbayamudaliar Layout, Tutikorine-628003¶29
V.Ravikumar
respondent
S.Durairaj, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, No.14, Perumanallure Road, Tirupur-2¶30
respondent
R.Jeyakuma, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, Arani Road, Sankaranpalayam, Vellore-632001¶32
V.Ravikumar
respondent
S.Ambalavannan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 6, State Bank Colony, Dindigul-7¶33
V.Rangrajan
respondent
Manoharan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 19, Kalimuthu St., Virudhunagar-626001¶35
P.Chandrasekaran
respondent
Jegadesan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 7, High Ground, 8th Cross, Maharaja Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627011¶36
P.Chandrasekaran
respondent
B.Padmanaban, Inspector Of Factories, 3rd Circle, 617, Annasalai, Bharathkumar Bhavan, Chennai¶41
Sasikala
respondent
A.R.Baskaran, Inspector Of Factories, 4th Circle, 617, Annasalai, Bharathkumar Bhavan, Chennai¶43
Sasikala
respondent
K.Chidambaranathan, O/o.Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 76, First St., Arulalantha Nagar, Tanjor-613007¶44
respondent
K.Arul, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, 525, Cross Cut Road, Coimbatore-641012¶45
M.Saravanakumar
respondent
Manoharan, Dy. Chief Inspector Of Factories, Hig Sipcot, Lal Compound, Hosur, Krishnagiri¶47
respondent
V.A.Appavusamraj, Inspector Of Factories, 7, High Ground, 8th Cross, Maharaja Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627011¶49
Sasikala
respondent
B.Sundaram, Dy. Chief Inspector Factories, Arani Road, Sankaranpalayam, Vellore 632001¶50
M.Saravanakumar

Coram

AI extract

S. M. Subramaniamauthor¶57
C. Kumarappanmember¶100

S.Rajamuthu, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajamuthu, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (Tantransco) Vs P.Asreen Banu

G.Sathishbabugodi Vs Mr.J.Radhakrishnan IAS and 3 others

S.Chenniappan Vs C.Jothi Venkateswaran

E. Poovendan Vs the Management of

The Managing Director, Caterpilar India (P) Ltd, Vs Caterpillar Pattali Employees Union (Citu)

M. Ramesh Vs The Management of Aryan Granites and Monuments Pvt. Ltd.