The Supreme Court on 1 May 2025 struck down the retrospective amendment to Rule 25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955, which gave seniority preference to in-service Sub-Inspectors recruited under a 20% departmental quota over open market candidates. The Court held that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions and declared the retrospective amendment violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
Background:
The judgment arose from civil appeals filed by R. Ranjith Singh and others, challenging the fixation of seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police in Tamil Nadu. The appellants were recruited through the 80% direct recruitment quota via open competition, while 20% of the vacancies were reserved for in-service candidates like Head Constables and Police Constables. This reservation was introduced by Government Order (G.O.) Ms. No. 1054 dated 13.07.1995 and was subsequently reiterated in further G.O.s in 1996 and 2009, although no formal amendment was made to the statutory rules at the time.
In 2017, through G.O. Ms. No. 868 dated 21.11.2017, the State government amended Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules to give seniority to departmental candidates above open market candidates in the same recruitment year. The amendment was given retrospective effect from 13 July 1995 and was published in the official Gazette, making it legally enforceable.
Appellants’ Contention:
Senior counsel for the appellants argued that the amendment granting retrospective seniority to in-service candidates was unconstitutional and arbitrary. They contended that seniority in direct recruitment must be based solely on merit, i.e., the marks obtained in the recruitment examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. It was emphasised that the amendment had unjustly elevated less meritorious in-service candidates above more qualified open market candidates.
Respondents’ Argument:
The State of Tamil Nadu defended the amendment, arguing that it had been issued to address stagnation in the lower ranks of the police force. They asserted that executive instructions issued since 1995 supported the preferential seniority for in-service candidates, and the 2017 amendment only regularised the policy. They also contended that reversing the seniority would cause massive administrative disruption, including potential reversion of promoted officers.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations:
A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeals and quashed the retrospective amendment. The Court held:
“Executive instructions can supplement a Statute or cover areas which the Statute does not extend. They cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or whittle down their effect.”
The Court observed that until the 2017 amendment, the recruitment rules were never formally modified to reflect the executive instructions, and yet appointments and seniority benefits were extended to in-service candidates. This, the Court held, was impermissible.
Citing Jaiveer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (2023) and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills (1992), the Court reiterated that administrative instructions cannot override or contradict statutory rules.
It further ruled that the retrospective effect of the 2017 amendment, impacting recruitments as far back as 1995, violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution:
“A statute which takes away the right of an individual with retrospective effect deserves to be set aside by this Court.”
Directions Issued by the Court:
- The 2017 G.O. and the corresponding amendment to Rule 25(a) were quashed.
- All gradation lists issued since 1995 must be revised within 60 days based solely on the marks obtained in the recruitment examination, irrespective of the candidate’s in-service or open category status.
- Officers already promoted shall not be reverted, but no further promotions will be made based on the old seniority list until the new one is issued.
- Future direct recruitment (including 20% in-service quota) must be through a common examination, and seniority shall be based strictly on merit.
