Supreme Court settles seniority dispute for Sub-Inspectors of Police in Tamil Nadu: R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (01 May 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 01 May 2025
Judges: B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed a long-standing dispute regarding the seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police in Tamil Nadu. The core issue revolved around whether in-service candidates, recruited under a 20% quota within the direct recruitment process, should be granted seniority over candidates recruited through open market competition, irrespective of their performance in the selection process. The bench, comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered a unanimous verdict.

Case Background

The case originated from conflicting claims regarding the seniority of Sub-Inspectors in the Tamil Nadu Police. Appellants, who were directly recruited, challenged a Government Order (G.O.) that granted seniority to in-service candidates recruited under a 20% quota, even if they had scored lower marks in the recruitment process. This G.O., they argued, violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law, equality of opportunity in public employment, and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.

The dispute arose because, over the years, the State Government had issued several G.O.s attempting to address the issue of seniority for in-service candidates. These G.O.s aimed to provide a channel for promotion for experienced police constables and head constables. However, the lack of consistent implementation and the failure to amend the relevant service rules created confusion and legal challenges.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the writ petitions filed by the direct recruitees, upholding the Government Order (G.O.) dated 21.11.2017. The High Court reasoned that in-service candidates should be given preference due to their experience and knowledge of the police department’s nuances. Aggrieved by this decision, the direct recruits appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The judgment revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859: Sections 8 and 10 confer powers to make rules for the police force.
• ✓ Chennai City Police Act, 1888: Sections 9 and 11 provide similar rule-making powers for the city police.
• ✓ Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the legislature to make laws regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• ✓ Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955: These rules govern the appointment, promotion, and seniority of police officers in the state. Rule 3 outlines the methods of appointment and promotion, while Rule 25 deals with seniority.
• ✓ Rule 3 of the 1955 Rules: Specifies the methods of appointment and promotion in the police service.
  “Rule 3 – Method of Appointment and promotion
  (a) (i) Appointment to the several classes and
  categories shall be made as indicated in Annexure
  – I.”
• ✓ Rule 25 of the 1955 Rules: Pertains to the determination of seniority among members of the police service.
  “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.”

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlighted the conflict between statutory rules and executive orders, as well as the principles of merit and equality in public employment.

Arguments by the Appellants (Direct Recruits):

• ✓ The primary argument was that the amendment brought about by G.O. dated 21.11.2017, which amended Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules, is violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
• ✓ The seniority of direct recruits should be based solely on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination, as per the original Rule 25.
• ✓ Granting seniority to in-service candidates, despite them having lower merit, is unfair and undermines the principle of meritocracy.
• ✓ Executive orders (G.O.s) cannot override statutory rules. The various G.O.s issued by the State Government before 2017 were not valid since the recruitment rules were not amended until then.
• ✓ The retrospective application of the 2017 amendment is unjust and disrupts the settled seniority of direct recruits.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Tamil Nadu and Departmental Candidates):

• ✓ The State Government has the power to issue administrative instructions, which have a binding force, especially when statutory rules are silent.
• ✓ The amendment to Rule 25(a) was validly made and gives preference to in-service candidates, considering their experience and service in the department.
• ✓ The policy decision to reserve 20% of vacancies for in-service candidates is aimed at encouraging and providing promotional opportunities to experienced police personnel.
• ✓ Reversing the seniority at this stage would cause significant disruption and injustice, as many in-service candidates have already been promoted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the amendment to Rule 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955, vide G.O. dated 21.11.2017, granting seniority to in-service candidates over direct recruits, is constitutionally valid.
2. Whether the executive instructions issued by the State Government prior to the amendment of the rules could supplant the statutory rules regarding seniority.
3. How should the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and in-service candidates be determined in the absence of clear statutory rules?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities in its judgment:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this authority to emphasize that executive instructions cannot contradict statutory provisions.
• Jaiveer Singh and Others Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Others [CITATION]*: This case was cited to reinforce the principle that government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules through administrative instructions.
• Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Others [CITATION]*: The Court used this case to support the view that inter-se placement of candidates selected through competitive exams must be based on merit.
• Prem Narayan Singh and Others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]*: This authority was cited to further emphasize that seniority should be based on merit in promotions based on competitive examinations.
• State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Raj Kumar and Others [CITATION]*: The Court distinguished this case, indicating that its facts were different and did not support the respondents’ arguments.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of equality, meritocracy, and the rule of law. The Court emphasized that:

• ✓ Seniority in public employment should be based on merit, as determined by performance in the selection process.
• ✓ Executive instructions cannot override or supplant statutory rules.
• ✓ Retrospective amendments that disrupt settled rights and benefits are generally disfavored.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s logical reasoning for Issue 1: “Whether the amendment to Rule 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955, vide G.O. dated 21.11.2017, granting seniority to in-service candidates over direct recruits, is constitutionally valid?”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Seniority in public employment must be based on merit, as determined by performance in the selection process.
• ✓ Executive instructions cannot override or supplant statutory rules.
• ✓ Retrospective amendments that disrupt settled rights are generally disfavored.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The respondents shall recast all gradation lists issued from time to time in respect of direct recruitment, including 20% in-service candidates, by granting seniority based on marks obtained in the qualifying examination/selection process within 60 days.
2. The respondent State shall not revert any officer who has been given further promotion based on 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 until the revised seniority list is issued.
3. After the issuance of the 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 the revised seniority list.
4. The direct recruits, in case they are found fit for promotion to the next higher post, will be entitled to notional promotion, fixation of seniority, and all other consequential benefits except back wages on grant of promotion to the next higher post.
5. 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 the 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 the appointing authority in the list of selected candidates.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that seniority in direct recruitment, including a quota for in-service candidates, must be determined solely based on merit as reflected in the marks obtained in the selection process. This reaffirms the principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules, and it reinforces the importance of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution in matters of public employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. settles a long-standing dispute regarding the seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police in Tamil Nadu. By quashing the G.O. that granted seniority to in-service candidates over direct recruits based on criteria other than merit, the Court has reaffirmed the principles of equality, meritocracy, and the rule of law in public employment. The decision ensures that seniority is determined by performance in the selection process, upholding the constitutional rights of all candidates.