Madras High Court
Unknown vs L.The Additional Chief Secretary on 7 March, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 06.01.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.l2211 & 12262 of 2024
and
WMP(MD).Nos.l0836,10837,10872 to 10874 of 2024
WP(MD).No.12211 of 2024
l. S.Ganesan
2 J.Charles ....Petitioners
Vs
l.The Additional Chief Secretary
Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Forests
Government of Tamil Nadu
Namakkal Kavingar Maaligai
Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Head of Department)
Forest Headquarters
Near Kannikapuram Check Post
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3.B.Suseela
4.P.Ramachandran
5.M.Senthil Kumar
6.P.I.Samy
7.N.P.Subbulakshmi
8.R.Subbaraj
9.S.Manjula
10.P.Vayanaperumal
11. J.Padmini
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
12.C.Mohanraj
13.M.A.Ramar
14.C.Karunanidhi
15.P.Senthilvel Kumar
16.B.Lakshmi
17.R.Loganathan
18.A.Anandhi
19.M.Murugesan
20.M.Annalakshmi ....Respondents
WP(MD)No. 12262 of 2024
1.M.Sudalaimani
2.A.Muniyandi
3.V.Senthurammal
4.K.K.Narmatha
5.S.Anitha
6.A.Ashraf Banu ....Petitioners
Vs
1 .The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government
Environment & Forest Department
Secretariat, St.George Fort
Chennai -9
2.The Principal of Chief Conservator
Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Head of Department)
Forest Head Quarters
Near Kannigapuram Check Post
Guindy, Chennai 32.
3.B.Suseela
4.P.Ramachandran
5.M.Senthilkumar
6.P.I.Samy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
2/23
7.N.P. Subulakshmi
8.R.Subbaraj
9.S.Manjula
10.P.Vayanaperumal
11. J.Padmini
12.C.Mohanraj
13.M.A.Ramar
14.C.Karunanithi
15.P.Senthilvel Kumar
16.B.Lakshmi
17.R.Loganathan
18.A.Anandhi
19.M.Murugesan
20.M.Annalakshmi
21.S.Dinesh Kumar
22.K.Selvi
23.K.Banumahi
24.G.Thenmozhi Suguna ....Respondents
(Respondents 21 to 24 are impleaded
vide Court order dated 27.11.2024)
Prayer in WP(MD).No.l2211 of 2024 : This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the impugned annual list of Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service as on 01.01.2022 published on 29.02.2024 on the file of the second
respondent insofar as placing the petitioners in the list of Assistants in serial
Number 65 and 79 respectively and the consequent impugned proceedings in
Ref.No.W2/6490/2024 dated 20.03.2024 on the file of the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
3/23
and the consequent impugned annual list of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service
as on 01.01.2024 published on 25.04.2024 on the file of the second
respondent insofar as placing the petitioners in the list of Assistants in serial
number 46 and 60 respectively and quash the same and further directing the
first respondent to revise the annual list of Assistants by placing the
petitioners prior to the promotees by considering the representation of the
petitioners dated 20.03.2024 and 11.03.2024 respectively and effect
promotion based on such revised annual list.
Prayer in WP(MD).No.l2262 of 2024 : This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the impugned Annual Seniority list of
Assistant published in the annual list of “ Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service” by
the second respondent vide his proceedings no.nil dated 28.04.2024 insofar
as serial Nos. 27 to 44 are concerned and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the respondents to revise the seniority in terms of
Section 3(r) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service)
Act, 2016 and promote the petitioners as Superintendent by including their
names in the panel for the year 2024-2025 within the period that may be
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.K.Jeyamohan in
WP.No.12211 of 2024
: Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
in WP.No. 12262 of 2024
For Respondents : Mr. Veera.Kathiraven
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.A.Baskaran
Government Advocate
for R1 & R2 in both revisions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
4/23
:Mr.M.Laxmimahendraa
For R4, R5, R7, R8, R10, R12, R13, R15
R19 & R20 in both revisions.
:No appearance for R3, R6, R9, R11, R14
R16, R17 and R18 in both revisions
COMMON ORDER
WP(MD).No.l2211 of 2024 has been filed by the direct recruited
Assistants challenging the annual list of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service as on
1st January 2022 in Tamil Nadu Forest Department dated 29.02.2024 and the
communication of the second respondent dated 20.03.2024 calling for
preparation of panel of Assistants for promotion as Superintendent in the
Forest Department for the year 2024-2025 and the annual list of Tamil Nadu
Ministerial Service as on 1st January 2024 in Tamil Nadu Forest Department
dated 25.04.2024.
2.WP(MD).No.12262 of 2024 has been filed by the direct recruited
Assistants in the Forest Department challenging the interse seniority list
between the direct recruitees and the promotee assistants which was
published on 25.04.2024.
3.Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are common, both
these writ petitions are tagged together and a common order is being passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
5/23
(A) Facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are as follows:
4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued a notification on
16.04.2014 calling for application from the eligible candidates for being
appointed as Assistants by Direct Recruitment failing under Group-IIA
services.
5.The examinations were held on 29.06.2014 and the results were
published on 12.12.2014, Phase-I counselling was held from 29.12.2014 to
22.01.2015. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission through letter dated
24.03.2015 allotted 75 candidates to the Forest Department. They were issued
with appointment orders on 25.03.2015. The selected candidates joined
between March to May 2015.
6.On 18.03.2015, a communication was issued by the Chief Conservator
of Forest for preparation of panel for promotion as Assistant from the post of
Junior Assistant/Typist/Steno-typist Grade-Ill for the year 2015-2016 for
which the crucial date was fixed as 15.03.2015. The promotion orders were
issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest 10.12.2015 and 24
member were promoted as Assistants and they joined duty on 10.12.2015.
7.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had conducted Phase-II
counselling for the candidates who got selected under Notification dated
16.04.2014 between 05.10.2015 to 13.10.2015. 28 candidates were selected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
6/23
and allotted to Tamil Nadu Forest Department by way of proceedings of
TNPSC dated 23.10.2015. The appointment orders were issued to the directly
recruited candidates on 10.12.2015. The selected candidates from Phase-II
counselling had joined duty from 21.12.2015 onwards.
8.Under Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, the annual list of seniority
as on 01.01.2016 was published and directly recruited Assistants from Phase
I counselling were placed in the seniority in Serial.Nos.I28 to 176. The said
seniority was based on communal rotation. The Assistants who were
promoted were placed in the seniority from Serial Nos.177 to 198. The
directly recruited Assistants from Phase-II counselling were placed in the
seniority from Sl.No.199 to 214. The seniority based on communal rotation
was followed till 01.01.2021.
9.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Contempt Petition (Civil)Diary
No.6415 of 2021 had directed all the departments in the State of Tamil Nadu
to revise the seniority based upon the merit rank obtained by the candidates in
TNPSC. In compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
TNPSC revised the seniority of directly recruited candidates as per their merit
rank and communicated the same to the Government on 20.06.2023.
10.Since the promotee Assistants were placed in between the directly
recruited candidates (selected through Phase-I and Phase-II), TNPSC sought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
7/23
for clarification from the Government through their communication dated
18.11.2022. The Government vide their communication dated 31.05.2023 had
informed TNPSC that the interse seniority has to be fixed as per Rule 40(2)
of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Services) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred as ‘Act’).
11.On 29.02.2024, the annual list of the Assistants as on 01.01.2022 was
published in which the directly recruited Assistants in Phase-I were placed
above the promotees. The directly recruited candidates through Phase-II
counselling were placed below the promotees. On 20.03.2024, the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest had issued a communication calling for
preparation of a panel for promoting Assistant to the post of Superintendent
for the year 2024-2025. Thereafter, the annual list of Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Services as on 1st January 2024 of the members of the Forest Department has
been published on 25.04.2024.
12.The annual list of the year 2022 and the order of the Principal
Conservator of the Forest dated 20.03.2024 calling for preparation of panel
for promotion to the post of Superintendent and the annual list as on
01.01.2024 dated 25.04.2024 were under challenge in the present writ
petition.
13.Two of the direct recruitees who were selected in the first Phase of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
8/23
counselling are the petitioners in WP(MD).No. 12211 of 2024. Six of the
direct recruitees who were recruited in the second Phase of counselling are
the petitioner in WP(MD).No.l2262 of 2024. Though 103 candidates were
recruited directly as Assistants, as on today, only 57 of them are in the Forest
Department. Out of the said 57 candidates, 33 candidates who were selected
through Phase-I counselling are placed as senior most. The promotees have
been placed below them. The directly recruited candidates through Phase-II
counselling are placed below the promotees.
14.Out of them, the petitioners in WP(MD).No.l2211 of 2024 namely
Ganesan and Charles, though they were selected under Phase-I, they have
been placed below the promotees on the ground that their ranks were changed
in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to follow
TNPSC merit rank.
15.1n the light of the above said facts, let us consider the submissions
made by the counsels made on either side.
(B)Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side:
16.According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners in WP(MD).No. 12262 of 2024, all the directly recruited
candidates should be placed in a single block. Merely because counselling
was conducted separately, they cannot be segregated and placed below the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
9/23
promotees. The learned Senior Counsel had relied upon Section 40(2) of Act,
and contended that the seniority of a person where the recruitment is by more
than one method, it should be determined with reference to the date on which
he is appointed to the service. The learned Senior Counsel laid emphasis
upon the 1st proviso to Section 40(2) of the Act and contended that where a
junior directly recruited to the service earlier than the senior under the same
method of recruitment, the senior shall be deemed to have been appointed on
the same day on which the junior was so appointed.
17.According to the learned Senior Counsel, when a junior (as per TNPSC
merit rank) is directly recruited as an Assistant first and thereafter, a senior
(as per TNPSC merit rank) is appointed on a later date, the senior should be
deemed to have been appointed on the same day on which the junior was so
appointed. So according to him, there cannot be any segregation of
candidates selected through a single recruitment process on the basis of
counselling conducted by TNPSC. The candidates who were directly
recruited through Phase-II counselling should always be deemed to have been
appointed on the date when the candidates from Phase-I counselling were
appointed. Therefore, all the directly recruited Assistants should be placed in
a single block and the promotee Assistants should be placed behind the single
block of directly recruited assistants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
10/23
18.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied
upon Section 3(b), 3(q) and Section 3(r) of the above said Act to impress
upon the Court that the promotee candidates can never be placed ahead of the
directly recruited candidates. The learned senior counsel also relied upon
third proviso to Section 40(2) of the Act. The interse seniority between the
persons who were appointed by more than one method shall be decided with
reference to their age and contended that the third proviso would not come
into operation in view of the fact that the first proviso to Section 40(2) of the
Act protect the rights of the senior candidates ( based on TNPSC rank).
19.The Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had further
contended that though TNPSC had conducted Phase-II counselling and
informed about the selected candidates on 23.10.2015 itself, the department
had delayed the issuance of appointment order in order to help the
in-service candidates. Ultimately, on 10.12.2015 promotion orders were
issued to the in-service candidates and the appointment orders were issued to
the directly recruited candidates. The delay was caused wantonly in order to
favour in-service candidates. In view of the said delay, the directly recruited
candidates through Phase-II counselling have been placed below the
promotee candidates.
20.The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(MD).No.l2211 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
11/23
had contended that the petitioners namely Ganesan and Charles were selected
through Phase-I counselling and they have also joined in April 2015.
However, these two candidates have been placed below the promotees who
were issued with promotion order only on 10.12.2015. The learned counsel
for the petitioners had further contended that on the date when the promotees
were appointed, the petitioners had already completed six months of their
services in the post of Assistant. Therefore, they cannot be placed below the
promotee candidates.
21.The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(MD).No.l2211 of 2024
had further contended that even if the seniority among the directly recruited
candidates is altered in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the petitioners, having been appointed in April 2015, should be placed
as the last two candidates in the first block to directly recruited candidates.
They cannot be pushed behind the promotee candidates.
22.The learned counsel had further contended that as far as the promotee
candidates are concerned, their seniority will get altered on the basis of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court only in their entry level post namely
Junior Assistant/Typist/Steno-typist Grade-Ill. Once they are promoted as
assistants, again their seniority cannot be re-determined on the basis of the
Supreme Court judgment. The directly recruited candidates through Phase-I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
12/23
counselling, cannot be assigned any rank below the promotees citing
alteration of seniority based upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, especially in view of the fact that the promotees as well as directly
recruited candidates through Phase-II counselling were not appointed through
a single notification. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petitions and to
place all the directly recruited candidates in a single block oyer and above the
promotee candidates.
23.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
official respondents had contended that, though the petitioners in
WP(MD).No. 12211 of 2024 were appointed in Phase-I counselling, their
mitial seniority was fixed based upon the communal rotation at 64 and 31
respectively. However, in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, their rank got downgraded to 77 and 98 respectively. Therefore, the
candidates who have secured rank up to 73 alone have been placed above the
promotees. Those candidates who have secured below the rank of 73 have
been placed below the promotee candidates. Therefore, the petitioners in
WP(MD).No. 12211 of 2024 cannot have any legal grievance, especially in
the light of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the contempt
proceedings.
24.The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon Section 40(2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
13/23
of the Act and contended that proviso to the above the said sections, would
be applicable only when the directly recruited candidates were issued with
appointment orders on the same day. In the present case, the directly recruited
candidates were appointed in 2 Phases. For the first Phase, the appointment
orders were issued in March 2015. In the second Phase, the appointment
orders were issued in October 2015. In such circumstances, the directly
recruited candidates cannot contend that they should be placed in a single
block over and above the promotees. Admittedly, the candidates selected in
the second Phase of counselling have joined after the promotees. In such
circumstances, the contention of the directly recruited candidates is not
legally sustainable. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
25.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents who are the
promotees had contended that the promotees have been issued with
promotion order on 10.12.2015 and on the same day, the directly recruited
candidates (selected through Phase-II counselling) were issued with
appointment orders. In such circumstances, the rank of the directly recruited
candidates, having been downgraded in view of the orders of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, naturally have to be placed below the promotee candidates.
Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
26.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
14/23
material records.
(C)Discussion:
27.Yet again the interse seniority between the directly recruited candidates
and the promotee candidates has come up for consideration before this Court.
The annual list for the year 2022 and the annual list for the year 2024 are
under challenge in the present writ petitions.
28.There is no difference between these two annual lists as far as the
interse seniority between the direct reeruitees and the promotees are
concerned. Apart from these annual lists, the order of the Principal Chief
Conservator, Forest Department dated 20.03.2024 calling for preparation of
panel for promotion from the post of Assistants to Superintendents is also
under challenge. This order dated 20.03.2024 is only an order consequential
to the impugned annual list of the year 2022. Therefore, this Court proceeds
to consider the validity of the annual list of the year 2022 and 2024.
29.A perusal of the annual list for the year 2022 /2024 reveals that the
directly recruited Assistants through Phase-I counselling who are already
promoted as Superintendents are placed in Sl.Nos. 147 to 160. Immediately,
below them are the directly recruited Assistants in the same counselling, who
were still working as Assistants and they are placed in Sl.Nos.1 to 26. As far
as the seniority up to Sl.No.26 in the cadre of Assistant is concerned, there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
15/23
no dispute between the parties.
30.From Sl.Nos.27 to 44, the promotee candidates who were promoted on
10.12.2015 are placed. From Sl.Nos. 45 to 67, the candidates selected
through Phase-II counselling are placed in the interse seniority list. Among
them Sl.No.46 Ganesan, Sl.No.59, Ramarajan and Sl.No.60 Charles are
directly recruited candidates, through Phase-I counselling. Therefore, it is
clear that these three candidates though selected under Phase -I counselling
and issued with appointment orders in March 2015, have been placed before
the promotees who were issued with promotion order on 10.12.2015. The
only reason that is assigned by the official respondents is that the rank of
these three candidates got downgraded since the orders of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings were complied with and their
ranks were reassigned based upon their TNPSC rank.
31.The following issues now that arise for consideration;
a)Whether the petitioners in WP(MD).No.l2211 of 2024 who were
selected in Phase-I counselling can be placed below the promotees who were
issued with promotion order only on 10.12.2015. ?
b)Whether the petitioners in WP(MD).No. 12262 of 2024 who were
directly recruited through Phase-II counselling and appointed on 10.12.2015,
can be placed below the promotee candidates who were issued with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
16/23
promotion orders on the same day. ?
32.Issue No.1:
As per Section 40(2) of the Act, where two methods of recruitment are
being followed for being appointed to a particular service, the seniority of a
person shall be determined with reference to the date on which he is
appointed to the service. The petitioners in WP(MD).No.l2211 of 2024 and
another candidate namely C.Ramarajan were directly recruited through
Phase-I counselling and they were issued with appointment orders on
24.03.2015. They have joined service in April and May 2015. All the
promotee candidates have joined as Assistants only after 10.12.2015. These
three candidates who have joined services in April and May 2015 should
have been placed over and above the promotee candidates in view of Section
40(2) of the Act. Merely because, their ranks got re-assigned due to the
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings, it has
nothing to do with their interse seniority vis-a-vis the promotees. When the
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is complied with, the interse seniority
among the direct recruitees alone will get altered. It can never be interpreted
to result in the downgrading of seniority of a directly recruited person to push
him in below the promotees who were belatedly promoted, six months after
the directly recruited persons. Therefore, the orders impugned in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
17/23
WP(MD).No.12211 of 2024 has to be set aside insofar as the petitioners areconcerned. Their seniority has to be placed below Ganakaraj and above
B.Suseela.
33.Issue No.2:
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the
first proviso to Section 40(2) of the Act, had contended that where a junior is
appointed earlier than a senior under the direct recruitment, the senior shall
be deemed to have been appointed on the same day on which the junior was
appointed. He had further contended that the directly recruited candidates
who were appointed through Phase-II counselling should be deemed to have
been appointed along with the candidates appointed in Phase-I counselling i.e
on 25.03.2015. In such circumstances, the candidates selected through Phase-
II counselling of TNPSC would naturally become senior to the promotee
assistants who were given promotion order only on 10.12.2015.
34.It is settled position of law that the seniority of a person can be
reckoned only with reference to the date on which he is appointed to a
particular service. The petitioners in WP(MD).No. 12262 of 2024 (those
selected under Phase-II counselling) were issued allotment orders to the
Forest Department only on 23.10.2015. They were issued with appointment
Orders by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Department on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
18/23
10.12.2015. On the other hand, the candidates selected in Phase-I counselling
were issued allotment orders on 24.03.2015 and appointment orders on
25.03.2015. Therefore, the seniority of the candidates selected through Phase-
II counselling cannot date back to 25.03.2015 when they were not even
issued with appointment orders.
35.Only if a junior is appointed earlier than the senior, under the direct
recruitment, the first proviso to Section 40(2) of the Act would get attracted.
A perusal of the record reveals that in the merit rank list, all the candidates
who were selected in Phase-II counselling are lower in the rank than the
candidates who were selected in Phase-I counselling. Therefore, it is clear
that the candidates appointed through Phase-II counselling are juniors in
TNPSC rank to the candidates who were appointed in Phase-I counselling. In
such circumstances, the first proviso to Section 40(2) of the Act cannot be
invoked to upgrade Phase-II counselling candidates and tag them along with
Phase-I counselling candidates and place all the directly recruited Assistants
as a single block.
36.The promotee Assistants and the directly recruited candidates
through Phase-II counselling were issued with appointment orders on the
same day, namely 10.12.2015. As per third proviso to Section 40(2) of the
Act, when the candidates are selected through more than one method of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
19/23
recruitment and issued with appointment orders on the same day, their interse
seniority has to be decided with reference to their age. The interse seniority
between the directly recruited Assistants and the promotee Assistants who
were issued with appointment orders on the same day namely 10.12.2015 has
to be arranged with reference to their age, i.e elder should be placed senior to
the younger.
37.A perusal of the impugned annual list of Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service as on 01.01.2024 published by Tamil Nadu Forest Department by the
Principal Conservator of Forest reveals that the promotee Assistants have
been placed en block over and above the directly recruited Assistants through
Phase-II counselling without considering the age.
38.There are six petitioners in WP(MD).No.12262 of 2024. Two of
them are born in the year 1978 and two of them are born in 1983. One
petitioner is born in the year 1973 and the another petitioner is born in the
year 1981. The promotee Assistants who are younger to the directly recruited
Assistants in Phase-II counselling have been placed above the writ petitioners
in WP(MD).Nos.12262 of 2024. Therefore, it is clear that the interse seniority
list has not been prepared as per third proviso to Section 40(2) of the Act and
hence, it is liable to be set aside insofar as the writ petitioners are concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
20/23
39.In view of the above said deliberations, this Court is inclined to pass
the following orders:
a)WP(MD).No.12211 of 2024 stands allowed and the official
respondents are directed to place the petitioners between Mr.M.Ganakaraj
and B.Suseela in the annual list of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service as on
01.01.2024 published by Tamil Nadu Forest Department by the Principal
Conservator of Forest and confer all the other consequential, promotional and
monetary benefits.
b)WP(MD).No.12262 of 2024 stands allowed and the official
respondents are directed to re-arrange the seniority of the promotee Assistants
and the directly recruited Assistants through Phase-II counselling with
reference to their date of birth. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.03.2025.
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
21/23
To
l.The Additional Chief Secretary
Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Forests
Government of Tamil Nadu
Namakkal Kavingar Maaligai
Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Head of Department)
Forest Headquarters
Near Kannikapuram Check Post
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.1
3. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Environment & Forest Department
Secretariat, St.George Fort
Chennai -9
4.The Principal of Chief Conservator
Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Head of Department)
Forest Head Quarters
Near Kannigapuram Check Post
Guindy, Chennai 32.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery common order made in
W.P.(MD).NOS.12211 & 12262 of 2024
and WMP(MD).Nos.10836, 10837,
10872 to 10874 of 2024
07.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )