# R. Ranjith Singh & Ors v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 612
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-01
- **Bench:** B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-ranjith-singh-ors-v-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-38692
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

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 recasted 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,842 of 64,338. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39842 for what follows._

[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 recasted 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 recasted; 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
Category
Method of
Appointment
Limitation
Appointing
Authority
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Class I -Category
1 Inspector of
Police
Promotion
from SubInspectors of
Police
Nil
In the mofussil,
the Deputy
Inspector -
General of Police
concerned and
in the Madras
City Police, the
Commissioner
of Police in
consultation
with the Director
General of Police
Category 1A
Inspector of
Police (Finger
Print )
G.O. Ms. No.
395 Home
Police (VI) dated
20.04.2000
By Promotion
from category
2A
Nil
DIG of Police
in charge of
Technical Service.
1784
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Category 2 -Sub
Inspectors of
Police
Substituted in
G.O. Ms. No.
1254 Home,
dated 16.7.92
Promotion
from Head
Constables
(other than
Band Head
Constables,
Office of
the Director
General
of Police,
Madras and
Reserve Head
Constables
including
Armourers,
Signallers
and Motor /
transport
Drivers).
Director
Recruitment
(G.O.Ms. No.
2635 Home
(Pol.III)-Dept.
dt. 22.9.86)
Promotion
and Director
recruitment is
40:60. Provided
that not more
than 20% of
vacancies
of Direct
Recruitment
quota shall be
filled up from
among the
members of
the service in
categories 7 &
8 in Class I and
also from among
the members
in Categories
4, 5 and 6 of
TNSPSS.
In the mofussil, the
Dy Inspr. Genl. Of
Police, concerned
and in the Madras
City Police the
Commissioner of
Police.
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.
No. 559, Home
Dated 29.3.96
Provided further
that 30% of
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 -
Sub Inspector
of Police (Finger
Print) G.O.Ms.
No. 395 Home
Police VI dated
20.4.2000
Direct
Recruitment
DIG of Police
in charge of
Technical Service.
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 SubInspectors 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.