K. MADALAIMUTHU AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 176 · Decided: 04-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. MADALAIMUTHU AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
B 
JULY 4, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law-Inter se seniority between persons temporarily appointed 
C as District Registrar dehors the Recruitment Rules as against direct recruits-
Claim of-Held: Temporary appointee can count his seniority in the cadre 
only from the date his services are regularized and not from the date of initial 
appointment to the post without recourse to the Recruitment Rules 
notwithstanding the fact that the promotees initially discharged duties of District 
Registrar-Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955-Rule 
D IO(a)(i)(l)-Tamil Nadu Registration Services Rules, 1969. 
E 
F 
The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was 
determination of inter se seniority between persons temporarily appointed 
as District. Registrar dehors the Recruitment Rules as against direct 
recruits. 
Appellants belonging to th1! Tamil Nadu Registration Services were 
working as Assistant Inspector General of Registration. Substantive 
vacancies of District Registrars were to be filled by direct recruitment and 
by recruitment by transfer from the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate 
Service in such manner that there would be at least three directly recruited 
District Registrars in position at any given time. Candidates from Tamil 
Nadu Registration Subordinate Service were temporarily appointed to 
function as District Registrar under R IO(a)(i)(l) of the Tamil Nadu State 
and Subordinate Service Rules, 1')55. Services of the said officers who had 
been recruited by transfer to the post of District Registrars for the years 
G 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were regularized. In year 1989, appellants 
were directly recruited as District Registrars in the Tamil Nadu 
Registration Service. Seniority list was prepared and the names of the 
appellants were included but placed below the persons who were promotee 
District Registrars. Appellants challenged the preparation of seniority list. 
H 
176 
K. MADALAIMUTHU v. ST ATE OF TAMIL NADU 
177 
Tribunal dismissed the applications. Appellants then filed Writ Petitions. A 
High Court held that the moment promotees commenced their probation 
they were said to have been appointed to the service. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Appellant-direct recruitees contended that the High Court erred in 
applying Rule 4 of the 1955 Rules since the appointment orders of the B 
promotees themselves indicate that they had been appointed temporarily 
under Rule lO(a)(i)(l) of the 1955 Rules which specifically indicates that 
such appointments were made otherwise than in accordance with the 
Rules; that they would not be entitled to the benefit of their service 
rendered by them prior to the regularization of their appointment for C 
counting their seniority; that their seniority will have to be reckoned from 
the date on which they were regularized; and that seniority in a cadre 
could only be in respect of substantial posts and not in respect of 
temporary posts made otherwise than in accordance with the rules. 
Respondent-State r.!lying on L. Chandrakishore Singh 's case D 
contended that unless there was a contrary rule, service rendered on 
probation or in an officiating capacity could not be ignored for 
determination of seniority; and in such case the entire period of service 
counts for seniority. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: I.I. The initial appointment to a post without recourse to 
the rules of recruitment, an appointment to ii service as contemplated 
under Rule 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 
1955, notwithstanding the fact that such appointee is called upon to 
perform duties of a post borne on th~ cadre of such service. Rule 39(c) of F 
the 1955 Rules indicate that a person temporarily promoted in terms of 
Rule 39(a) is required to be replaced as soon as possible by a member of 
the service who is entitled to the promotion under the rules. It stands to 
reason that a person who is appointed temporarily to discharge the 
functions in a particular post without recourse to the recruitment rules, G 
cannot be said to be in service till such time his appointment is regularized. 
Therefore, it is only from the date on which his services are regularized 
that such appointee can count his seniority in the cadre. [186-C-F) 
1.2. In the instant case, the authorities, on the strength of the several 
Government Orders gi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.