Supreme Court of India
R. RANJITH SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 612
- Decided
- 1 May 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B V NAGARATHNA
Holding
The amendment to Rule 25 granting seniority to in‑service candidates over open‑market recruits is unconstitutional and must be struck down.
Summary
The appellants, recruited as Sub‑Inspectors of Police through direct recruitment, challenged a Government Order dated 21‑11‑2017 that granted seniority to 20% in‑service candidates over those recruited from the open market. The order retrospectively amended Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955, thereby violating the merit‑based seniority provision. The Supreme Court examined whether executive instructions could supplant statutory rules and whether the retrospective amendment infringed Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It held that the unamended Rule 25 clearly required seniority to be fixed on the basis of rank in the merit list, and the amendment giving preferential seniority to less‑meritorious in‑service candidates was unconstitutional. Consequently, the Court quashed the 2017 G.O. and struck down the amendment to Rule 25, directing the State to recast the seniority lists based solely on examination marks. The appeals were disposed of with directions for fresh gradation lists and future recruitment to be conducted on a 100% merit basis.
Issues considered
- The validity of the 21‑11‑2017 Government Order amending Rule 25 to grant seniority to in‑service candidates over open‑market recruits.
- Whether executive instructions can override or supplant statutory recruitment rules.
- Whether the retrospective effect of the amendment violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Chennai City Police Act, 1888s. 11, s. 9
- Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 16, s. 21, s. 309
- Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859s. 10, s. 8
- Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955
Headnote
Issue for Consideration 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. Headnotes† Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service R.25 – Direct recruitment – Sub-Inspectors of Police – The facts of the case reveal that the constables working in the police department 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%
Subjects
fixation of inter se senioritydirect recruitmentin‑service candidatesdirect recruitment quotaseniority of sub‑inspectors of police selected from constabulary servicessub‑inspectors of police selected from open marketfixation of seniority of direct recruitmentsretrospective effectappointment under the direct recruitment quotareservation to in‑service candidatesexecutive instructions cannot supplant the statutory rulescandidates recruited from the open marketseniority list recastviolative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1778 : 2025 INSC 612
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors.
v.
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6305-6306 of 2025)
01 May 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
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.
Headnotes†
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 – R.25 –
Direct recruitment – Sub-Inspectors of Police – The facts
of the case reveal that the constables working in the police
department 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 – 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 – Writ Petitions – The High Court upheld the G.O.
dated 21.11.2017 – Correctness:
Held: 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
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1779
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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 – 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 – 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 inservice 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 Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and deserves to be struck down by this Court – Further, the action
of the State Government in amending the recruitment rules with
retrospective effect is certainly violative of Arts.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 – 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 – Resultantly, the GO dated 21.11.2017 is quashed and
amendment to Rule 25 sub rule (a) also is hereby struck down.
[Paras 19, 22, 23, 27, 28]
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 – Direct
recruitment – Sub-Inspectors of Police – 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 –
Directions issued. [Para 28]
1780 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others
[2022] 15 SCR 847 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680 – distinguished.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. M/s G.S. Dall and
Flour Mills [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 590 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC
150; Jaiveer Singh and Others v. The State of Uttarakhand and
Others, 2023 INSC 1024 : [2023] 15 SCR 597; Dinesh Kumar
Gupta and Others v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and
Others [2020] 10 SCR 497 : (2020) 19 SCC 604; Prem Narayan
Singh and Others v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 7
SCC 649 – referred to.
List of Acts
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955; Tamil Nadu
District Police Act, 1859; Chennai City Police Act, 1888; Constitution
of India.
List of Keywords
Fixation of inter se seniority; Direct recruitment; In-service
candidates; Direct recruitment quota; Seniority of sub-inspectors
of police selected from constabulary services; Sub-Inspectors
of Police selected from open market; Fixation of seniority of
direct recruitments; Retrospective effect; Appointment under the
direct recruitment quota; Reservation to in-service candidates;
Executive instructions cannot supplant the statutory rules;
Candidates recruited from the open market; Seniority list re-
casted; Violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 6305-6306
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 25263 of 2009 and WP No.
33544 of 2018
With
Civil Appeal No. 6307 of 2025
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1781
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., A. Venayagam Balan, M.P. Parthiban,
Ankur Prakash, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas
Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., Karpagavinayagam, Sr. Adv.,
Sabarish Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan,
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Danish Saifi, Pranjal Mishra, Sreegesh M.K,
A. Venayagam Balan, Gaurav Pal, Mrs. V. Santhanalakshmi,
Yashodeep P Deshmukh, Puneet Thakur, Mrs. Meera Karta,
C.M. Sundaram, Ravi Shankar Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Mishra,
Ms. Sameeksha Kashyap, Sahil Goyal, Binay Kumar Das, A. Selvin
Raja, Musthafa Atheeq, Ashokkumar. K.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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 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:
1782 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1783
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(b) The Range Promotion Board in respect of various units
as detailed below, subject to the 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 Method of Limitation Appointing
Category Appointment Authority
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Class I -Category Promotion Nil In the mofussil,
1 Inspector of from Sub- the Deputy
Police Inspectors of Inspector –
Police General of Police
concerned and
in the Madras
City Police, the
Commissioner
of Police in
consultation
with the Director
General of Police
Category 1A By Promotion Nil DIG of Police
from category in charge of
Inspector of
2A Technical Service.
Police (Finger
Print )
G.O. Ms. No.
395 Home
Police (VI) dated
20.04.2000
1784 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Category 2 -Sub Promotion Promotion In the mofussil, the
Inspectors of from Head and Director Dy Inspr. Genl. Of
Police Constables recruitment is Police, concerned
(other than 40:60. Provided and in the Madras
Substituted in
Band Head that not more City Police the
G.O. Ms. No.
Constables, than 20% of Commissioner of
1254 Home,
Office of vacancies Police.
dated 16.7.92
the Director of Direct
General Recruitment
of Police, quota shall be
Madras and filled up from
Reserve Head among the
Constables members of
including the service in
Armourers, categories 7 &
Signallers 8 in Class I and
and Motor / also from among
transport the members
Drivers). in Categories
4, 5 and 6 of
Director
TNSPSS.
Recruitment
(G.O.Ms. No.
2635 Home
(Pol.III)-Dept.
dt. 22.9.86)
Provided further
if departmental
candidates are
not available to
fill up the 20%
of vacancies of
direct recruitment
from among
the members of
the service in
categories 7 &
8 in Class I and
also from among
the members
in category
4, 5 and 6 of
the TNSPSS,
candidates from
open market shall
be selected and
the vacancies
shall be filled up
accordingly.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1785
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Added in G.O. Ms. Provided further
No. 559, Home that 30% of
Dated 29.3.96 vacancies
of Direct
Recruitment
quota shall be
reserved for
women and the
provisions in
Adhoc Rules
issued in
G.O.Ms. No.
2586 Home dt.
1.11.74 shall
apply to them.
Category 2A – Direct DIG of Police
Recruitment in charge of
Sub Inspector
Technical Service.
of Police (Finger
Print) G.O.Ms.
No. 395 Home
Police VI dated
20.4.2000
Rule 25 which deals with Seniority is reproduced hereunder:
“Rule 25. Seniority:
(a) The seniority of a person in any class or category of
the service shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower
rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained
by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the
appointing authority, subject to the rule of reservation where
it applies. The date of commencement of his probation
shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of
his seniority unless he has been appointed temporarily
under sub rule (d) of rule 10 or sub rule (b) of rule 15 as
the case may be.
Provided that in the case of Sub-Inspectors (recruited
direct) (category 2 of class I) the seniority shall be fixed
on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final
examination in the Police Training College, Vellore.
1786 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Provided further that in respect of direct recruitment made
in the years 1976 and 1979 to the posts of Sub-Inspectors
of Police, Reserve inspectors of Police by the Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission the seniority shall be fixed with
reference to the rank assigned by the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission in the list of selected candidates
communicated by it.
Inserted in G.O.Ms.No.767, Home (Pol-III) Dept. dated
28.3.85
Provided further that all directly recruited Assistant Sub-
Inspectors selected for direct recruitment as Sub-Inspectors
shall be placed as a block above the fresh direct recruits
but interse again they shall retain their original seniority
in the list of Assistant Sub-Inspectors.
G.O.Ms.No.2168, Home dated 17.8.72
Provided further that in the case of Reserve Sub-Inspectors
(category 4 of class I) the seniority shall be fixed on the
completion of training with the Special Armed Police
instead of at the time of selection but such seniority shall
be liable to revision by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police concerned, if he considered it necessary, before
the completion of probation.
Provided also that the required number of Head Constables
fit for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector shall be
included in the order of merit on the basis of the result
of the examination specified in clause (ii) of sub rule (e)
of rule 18 and re-arranged in the order of seniority in the
post of Head Constable.
G.O.Ms.No.1883, Home dated 5.8.87
This sub rule shall apply to any member of the service
other than Sub-Inspectors appointed on or after 1st January
1962. It shall also apply to Sub-Inspectors appointed on
or 25.8.1965.
(b) The transfer of a person from one class or category
of the service to another class or category carrying the
same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1787
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority and the
seniority of a person so transferred, shall be determined
with reference to the rank in the class or category from
which he was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt
arises in applying this sub rule seniority shall be determined
by the appointing authority.
(c) Where a member of the service in any class or category
is reduced to a lower class or category he shall be placed
at the top of the latter unless the authority ordering such
reduction directs that he shall take rank in such lower
class or category next below any specific member thereof.
(d) The seniority of any person in a service or post of the
merged territory of Pudukottai who is absorbed in a post
in this service shall be determined as follows:
(i) if he is absorbed in a post similar to that which he was
formerly holding in the service of the merged territory of
Pudukottai, his seniority shall be determined by the date
from which he was holding the former post continuously.
(ii) if he is absorbed in a post of a higher cadre carrying
a higher scale of pay than that which he was formerly
holding in the service of the merged territory of Pudukottai,
his seniority shall be determined by the date on which he
joined the post in this service.
(iii) if he is absorbed in a post other than those specified in
clauses (i) and (ii) which do not improve his cadre and scale
of pay in the service of the merged territory of Pudukottai
his seniority shall be determined on the basis of merit.
(e) The seniority of qualified special Armed Policemen
appointed by transfer as Constables in this service shall
be determined by the date of their first appointment in
this service for purposes of confirmation in vacancies in
this service.”
4. Under the 1955 Rules, until the year 1995, Head Constables were
considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors under the
promotion quota fixed for them and it is an undisputed fact that
there was no quota prescribed for them to participate in the direct
recruitment process which was meant only for open market candidates.
1788 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Head Constables serving the police department submitted various
representations to the government. Keeping in view their stagnation,
the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms.) No. 1054 dated
13.07.1995 reserving 20% of vacancies under the Direct Recruitment
quota to be filled up only from constabulary services. The relevant
extract of the said G.O. dated 13.07.1995 is reproduced as under:
“At present, selection to the post of Sub-Inspectors of
Police Men (direct recruitment) is conducted by the Tamil
Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. In order to
encourage the Police Constables and Head Constable to
enhance their efficiency and educational qualification for
early promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police, it is considered
that a 20% reservation could be made in the direct
recruitment to the post of Sub- Inspector of Police. Further,
in its judgment dated 18.01.1995 in O.A. No. 1368/94
(batch cases) the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal suggested that it would be desirable to have a
special selection made from among the graduates working
in the department who have completed 5 years of service
against the direct recruitment quota.
2. The Government have examined the matter in detail.
Accordingly, they direct that 20% of the vacancies in the
direct recruitment of the Sub-Inspector of Police be reserved
for the Police Constables and Head Constables in category
I and their equivalent ranks in the Armed Reserve and
Tamilnadu Special Police Branch in category II and III. The
direct recruitment quota of Sub-Inspector of Police will be
filled 80% by from open market and 20% from serving police
personnel in all the three categories. (emphasis supplied)
3. The recruitment shall be made by Tamilnadu Uniformed
Services Recruitment Board against this 20% reservation
in each Year of direct recruitment from among the police
constables and Head Constables and their equivalent rank
in Armed Reserve and Tamilnadu Special Police who are
graduates and who have completed 5 years of service.
The candidates should have a clean record without any
punishments, other than the minor punishments of black
mark, reprimand or censure, in the 5 years preceding the
date of notification of selection.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1789
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
4. The Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
shall follow the prescribed norms and procedures adopted
in the direct recruitment selection of Sub-Inspectors such
as physical measurements, physical efficiency test, written
test viva voce etc., The inter-se seniority of the candidates
selected against this recruitment would be above those
selected in the open competition in the year. (emphasis
supplied).”
The aforesaid G.O. further provided that inter-se seniority of the
candidates selected under the 20% in-service candidates would
be placed above those selected in open competition in that year
by way of direct recruitment. The G.O. dated 13.07.1995 was only
an executive order and the Rules framed under proviso to Article
309 were not amended. Realising this mistake, another G.O. (Ms.)
No. 1627 dated 24.10.1996 was issued proposing to amend the Rules
in order to give 20% vacancies to in-service candidates and to give
seniority to them over and above the directly recruited candidates
recruited through the open market. The relevant extract of G.O.
dated 24.10.1996 is reproduced as under:
“ABSTRACT
POLICE – Special recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors
of Police from Police Constable/Head Constable against
20% posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police under direct
recruitment quota- Orders issued – Amendments to
Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate
Service – Issued.
HOME (POLICE.III) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms. No. 1627 Dated: 24.10.1996
Read:
G.O.Ms. NO. 1054,;Home dated 13.07.95
Read Also:
From the Director General of Police, Chennai Letter
No. 81042/R&T(1)/95, dated 23.08.95
****
1790 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
ORDER
The following Notification will be published in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette:
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 8 & 10 of
the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 (Central XXIV OF
1059) and sections 9 and 11 of the Madras City Police Act,
1888 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1888), read with the proviso
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and of all other
powers hereunto enabling, the Governor of Tamil Nadu
hereby makes the following amendments to the Special
Rules for the Tamil Nadu Special Police subordinate
Service (Section 34 in Volume III of the Tamilnadu Service
Manual, 1970.)
2. The amendment hereby made shall be deemed to have
come into force on the 13th July 1995.
AMENDMENTS
In the said Rules,
(1) in rule 7, in sub-rule (a), in the Table, in column (3)
against the entry “2(a) Sub-Inspectors” in column (i) thereof,
for the entries, the following entries shall be substituted,
namely:
1. Promotion from Havildars or
2. Direct Recruitment;
Provided that proportion in which vacancies shall be
filled up by the methods specified in items (1) and (2)
above shall be 40: 60 percent of the Cadre:
Provided further that not more than 20% vacancies of
direct recruitment quota shall be filled up from among
the members of the service in categories 4, 5 and 6
and also from the members in categories 6 and 7 in
Clas 1 of the Tamilnadu Police Sub-ordinate Service,
who are graduates and have put in five years of service
in their respective categories.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1791
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(2) in rule 24, to sub-rule (a), the following proviso shall
be added, namely: -
Provided that the seniority of the Sub-Inspectors of
Police directly recruited from among the members of
this service and the members in the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service shall be fixed above the direct
recruits selected from Open Market in the same year.”
5. It is an undisputed fact that after issuance of the G.O. dated
24.10.1996, the proposed amendment was again not notified and the
G.O. was not brought into force by issuing notification in the official
Gazette. The State Government of Tamil Nadu, realizing its mistake,
issued another G.O. Ms. No. 461 dated 10.06.2009 proposing to
amend the Rules in order to grant seniority to in-service candidates
recruited under the direct recruitment quota. The relevant extract of
G.O dated 10.06.2009 are reproduced hereunder:
“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 1888) read with
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and
of all other powers hereunto enabling, the Governor of
Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to
the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate
Service (Section 31 volume III of the Tamil Nadu Services
Manual).
2. The Amendments hereby made shall be deemed to
have come into force on 19.05.2008.
AMENDMENTS
In the said Special Rules:-
(1) 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-Inspector of
Police directly recruitment from the departmental quota
shall be fixed above the direct recruits selected from open
quota in the same year; and…”
1792 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The aforesaid G.O. also provided that it shall be deemed to come
into force with effect from 19.05.2008 and seniority of Sub-Inspectors
of Police selected from constabulary services would be kept over
and above that of the Sub-Inspectors of Police selected from open
market in the same year. The G.O. dated 10.06.2009 was again not
notified in the official Gazette and the proposed amendment was
also not brought in force. The State Government finally realizing
its mistake, issued G.O. Ms. No. 868 dated 21.11.2017, which was
made applicable with retrospective effect from 13.07.1995 and is the
bone of contention before this Court. The relevant extracts of the
G.O. dated 21.11.2017 are reproduced as under:
“ABSTRACT
Public Services - Police Department - Fixation of seniority
of the 20% departmental quota candidates for the post of
Sub-Inspector of Police above the open quota candidates -
Amendment to rule 25 (a) of the Special Rules for Tamil
Nadu Police Subordinate Services, 1955 – Orders-Issued.
Home (Police VI) Department
G.O.(Ms) No. 868 Dated: 21.11.2017
Read:
1. G.O.(Ms.) No.1054, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated
13.07.1995.
2. G.O.(Ms.) No.1626, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated
24.10.1996.
3. G.O.(Ms.) No.461, Home (Pol.VI) Department, dated
10.06.2009.
Read also:
4. From the Director General of Police, Chennai, letter
Rc.No.168187/Rect.II(1)/2016, dated 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1793
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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 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.
1794 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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).
2. The amendment hereby made shall be deemed to have
come into force on the 13th 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1795
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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 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 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
1796 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1797
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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 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
1798 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(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 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. 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1799
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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 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 criteria for selection and the
said G.O. provides for grant of seniority to them over the remaining
1800 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1801
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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 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 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
1802 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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.
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1803
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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 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.
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
1804 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
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 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and deserves to
be struck down by this Court.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1805
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
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 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,
1806 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1807
R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Limited Departmental Examination. The High Court granted 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
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
1808 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
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 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.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "fixation of inter se seniority"Sign in to search