Direct Recruits Must Rank Above Temporary Appointees: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that employees appointed through a regular competitive recruitment process must rank above those appointed temporarily, on an ad hoc basis or on compassionate grounds while determining inter se seniority.

A Bench of Justices S V Bhatti and Shree Chandrashekhar said employees appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955, as temporary or ad hoc measures cannot claim the benefit of the period of such service for seniority over candidates selected through a regular competitive examination.

Why did Supreme Court place direct recruits above temporary appointees?

Court said a government employee appointed to a post after following the prescribed recruitment procedure must ordinarily rank senior to those who entered service as a temporary or stopgap measure, or were appointed because of an emergency.

"This is a basic rule of seniority that a government employee appointed to a post following the due procedure and in accordance with the rules must rank senior to the appointees who entered in service as a temporary or stopgap measure or were appointed owing to some emergency," the Bench said.

Court also upheld Clause 10 of the applicable Rules, which required temporary appointees to be placed below the direct recruits of the 1983 batch.

It said the employer has the right to frame rules determining inter se seniority between different classes of employees and to devise a methodology for fixing seniority. Such rules cannot be challenged merely because another method could have been framed or because the prescribed method causes hardship to a particular class of employees.

What about compassionate appointees?

Court held that compassionate appointments are an exception to the normal recruitment process under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore cannot automatically claim the same seniority position as regular direct recruits.

It also held that executive orders issued under Article 162 to regularise compassionate appointments cannot override the basic principles governing service seniority, including the preference given to regular recruits over those appointed through stopgap or non-competitive modes.

Court was dealing with civil appeals and transferred cases arising from a dispute over the inter se seniority of different categories of employees in Tamil Nadu.

The direct recruits and special appointees had claimed seniority over each other, while both categories also claimed a position above the compassionate appointees.

The direct recruits and special appointees had challenged a decision of the division bench of the Madras High Court.

The high court had held that the 1983 batch of direct recruits would rank above the special appointees in the combined seniority list, irrespective of their dates of joining.

At the same time, the high court had dismissed petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal's decision. The tribunal had held that the seniority of the compassionate appointees, S Prem Kumar and T A Kannappa, should be reckoned above the 1983 direct recruits who were appointed after them and the special appointees who were regularised with effect from June 25, 1984.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this aspect of the tribunal's decision.

How should seniority between compassionate and special appointees be decided?

Court held that the inter se seniority between compassionate appointees and special appointees should be determined on the basis of their dates of regularisation.

"This is one criterion which is most suited in the present scenario. Any inter se dispute regarding seniority of two sets of employees should be examined on broad principles with a common sense approach," the Bench said.

Court cautioned against examining seniority disputes with mathematical precision. It said that in every such dispute, there would be some factor that may favour one category of employees and another factor that may favour another category.

"The court is, therefore, required to take a practical view of the matter and should not involve itself in forensic examination of every little fact howsoever insignificant it may be," the Bench said.

It added that where the applicable Recruitment Rules clearly prescribe a methodology for fixing inter se seniority, that methodology must be followed. In the absence of such a provision, seniority of temporary, ad hoc or compassionate appointees should ordinarily be reckoned from the date of their regularisation.

The Supreme Court ultimately modified the judgments under challenge and held that the compassionate appointees, Prem Kumar and Kannappa, would not rank above the 1983 batch of direct recruits.

Case Title: M Prema Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Bench: Justices S V N Bhatti and Shree Chandrashekhar 

Date of Judgment: October 09, 2026