C.Venkatesan v. R.Karthikeyan

Page1 of 16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.A.Nos.3589 and 3607 of 2025 AND C.M.P.Nos.29531, 29533, 29743 and 29744 of 2025 W.A.No.3589 of 2025

¶1C.Venkatesan

¶2M.Anbazhagan ..Appellants -vs-

¶1R.Karthikeyan

¶2V.Mariappan

¶3K.Gopinath

¶4G.Thayalan

¶5M.Eranian

¶6Meenakshisundaram

¶7T.Thirunavukkarasu

¶8State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Home Department, The Secretariat Chennai 09

¶9The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai 04

10.A.Arun

11.G.Karthik

12.A.Arun

13.S.Ameer ali Jinna

14.U.M.Avinash

15.R.Stephen Vinodh

16.S.Madhan Kumar Page2 of 16

17.Chelladurai

18.R.Tamilselvi

19.J.Deepa

20.Manoj Kumar

21.G.Gopal

22.Manoj M.T

23.C.Manjula

24.C.Madhavi

25.S.Elavarasi (R23 to R25 impleaded as per order dated 06.01.2026)

26.S.Shunmugasundaram

27.R.R. Venkatesan

28.N.Maharajan

29.D.Augustin

30.M.Ranjith

31.V.Dilipkumar

32.C.Kanagaraj

33.Ramakrishnan

34.R.Manjula Devi

35.P.Vijayakumar

36.R.Meena

37.K.Madhavan (R26 to R37 impleaded as per order dated 28.01.2026)

38.S.Suresh

39.P.Samuthirakani

40.G.Gopinath

41.P.Ravindran (R38 to R41 impleaded as per order dated 28.01.2026)

42.M.Jayalakshmi

43.V.Ananthi

44.R.Rajarajeswari (R42 to R44 impleaded as per order dated 28.01.2026) Page3 of 16

45.M.Venugopal

46.P.Premkumar

47.M.Mukunthan

48.D.Manojkumar (R45 to R48 impleaded as per order dated 28.01.2026)

49.S.Sathishkumar

50.G.Ponthilakraj

51.G.Vignesh Guru

52.S.Mani (R49 to R52 impleaded as per order dated 28.01.2026)

53.R.Ramachandran

54.P.Shanthi

55.S.Mohandoss

56.S.Kanagaraj (R53 to R56 impleaded as per order dated 28.01.2026)

57.G.Manikumar

58.C.A.Kesavan

59.K.Karuppasamy Pandian

60.R.Nandhakumar

61.D.Premkumar

62.B.Agilan Raj (R57 to R62 impleaded as per order dated 09.07.2026)

63.P.B.Theerthagiri

64.A.Manimekalai

65.P.Parthiban

66.K.Prithika Yashini

67.M.Karthikeyan

68.M.P.Dinesh Kumar

69.V.Dinesh

70.G.Selvakumar

71.D.Diwan Mydheen Page4 of 16

72.J.Ganesan

73.M.Selvakumar

74.M.Balasubramaniyan

75.S.Raja

76.R.Ramasamy

77.S.Ranjith

78.M.Rajkamal

79.A.Harun Ersath

80.K.R.Kumar

81.K.Marimuthu

82.Lavanya G (R63 to R82 impleaded as per order dated

09.07.2026) … Respondents W.A.No.3607 of 2025

¶1R.Karthikeyan

¶2V.Mariappan

¶3K.Gopinath

¶4G.Thayalan

¶5M.Eraninan

¶6M.Meenakshisundaram

¶7T.Thirunavukkarasu … Appellants -vs-

1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Home Department, The Secretariat, Chennai 09

2.The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai 4.

3.A.Arun

4.G.Karthik

5.A.Arun

6.S.Ameer Ali Jinna

7.U.M.Avinash

8.R.Stephen Vinodh

¶9S.Madhan Kumar

¶10M.Chelladurai Page5 of 16

¶11R.Tamilselvi

¶12J.Deepa

¶13Manojkumar

¶14G.Gopal

¶15M.T.Manoj

¶16C.Venkatesan

¶17M.Anbazhagan

¶18S.Shunmugasundaram

¶19R.R.Venkatesan

¶20N.Maharajan

¶21D.Augustin

¶22M.Ranjith

¶23V.Dilipkumar

¶24C.Kanagaraj

¶25Ramakrishnan

¶26R.Manjula Devi

¶27P.Vijayakumar

¶28R.Meena

¶29K.Madhavan (R18 to R29 impleaded as per order dated 28.01.2026)

¶30M.Jayalakshmi

¶31V.Ananthi

¶32R.Rajarajeswari (R30 to R32 impleaded as per order dated 28.01.2026)

¶33N.Prabhakaran

¶34V.Jagadeesan

¶35S.Manikandan

¶36M.Santhana Bose

¶37K.Ganapathy

¶38A.Vimal Nathan,

¶39M.Santhosh Kumar

¶40N.Karthick

¶41P.Muthumari Deventhirar

¶42D.Rajiv Gandhi

¶43Suresh Pandian

¶44G.Jeya Pandi

¶45C.Madhavi

¶46R.Kanagavalli

¶47M.Kamatchi Page6 of 16

¶48K.Karthigai Selvi

¶49V.Jothi Lakshmi

¶50M.Benazir Begum (R33 to R50 impleaded as per order dated 09.07.2026) … Respondents W.A.No.3589 of 2025 Prayer: To set aide the order dated 19.11.2925 passed by the learned Judge of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.39119 of 2025. W.A.No.3607 of 2025 Prayer: To set aside the order passed in W.P.No.39119 of 2025 dated

19.11.2025 by allowing the Writ Appeal. Case No. For Appellants For Respondents W.A.No.3589 of 2025 Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthy For Ms.S.Varsha Mr.T.Gowthaman, AAG for R8 & R9 Mr.R.Prathapkumar for R10 Mr.C.Jayavel for R18 & R19 Mr.K.Venkat Ramani, Senior Counsel For M.Muthappan For R11 to 16, 26 to 37 & R57 to 62 Mr.MA.Gowthaman For R23 to 25 Mr.Ravi For R38 to 41 Ms.Jayanthi K.Shan For R42 to 44 Mr.L.Chandrakumar For R45 to 48 Mr.Balan Haridas For R49 to 52 Mr.S.T.S.Murthy, Senior Counsel For Mr.Veerapandian For R53 to 56 Mr.Aditya B.Sarangarajan For R63 to 82 W.A.No.3607 of 2025 Mrs.Dakshyani Reddy, Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Sathish Kumar Mr.T.Gowthaman, AAG for R1 & R2 Mr.K.Venkat Ramani, Senior Counsel For M.Muthappan For R3, 4, 18 to 29 & 33 to 50 Ms.Jayanthi K.Shan For R30 to 32 ***** Page7 of 16 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.) Under assail is the Writ Order dated 19.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.39119 of 2025. Writ Petitioners are appellants in the present Intra Court Appeals instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

¶2Dispute raised is regarding fixation of seniority amongst Sub-Inspectors of Police initially appointed in Taluk Police Wing (TPW) and Armed Reserve Wing (ARW). It is not in dispute that all Sub-Inspectors of Police involved in the present lis were recruited in a common recruitment made in pursuance of Recruitment Notification No.110 dated 01.04.2010.

¶3On the side of Appellants, it is contended that on their transfer from ARW to TPW, their seniority is to be fixed taking into consideration the marks obtained by them in the initial recruitment process conducted in the year 2010. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Singh and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others1, seniority is to be fixed based on the marks 12025 INSC 612 Page8 of 16 obtained by candidates in the examination, on the basis of which, they have been recruited to service. Applying the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Ranjith Singh's case (supra), seniority of transferees, transferred from ARW to TPW is to be fixed and consequently, their promotions to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police are to be considered. It is further contended that at the time of transfer of these Armed Reserve Sub-Inspectors (ARSIs), it is stated by the Government that seniority will be fixed under Rule 25(b) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules (in short 'TNPSS Rules'). Rule 25(b) of the TNPSS Rules states that transfer of a person from one class or category of service to another carrying the same pay scale shall not be treated as "first appointment" to the latter for seniority purposes. Therefore, original marks obtained by Sub-Inspectors of Police at the time of their initial recruitment is to be taken into consideration for fixation of seniority on their transfer from ARW to TPW.

¶4Contesting respondents, currently serving in TPW would oppose, by stating that marks obtained in the recruitment process in the year 2010 was considered along with the option exercised by selected candidates. Accordingly, selected candidates were either posted in ARW or TPW. After joining duty either in ARW or TPW, separate seniority list for both Wings have been drawn and being maintained for grant of Page9 of 16 promotion and other benefits within the Wing. The said Wing-wise seniority in the present case has been followed for the past about 10 years. Armed Reserve Sub-Inspectors (ARSIs) submitted representations seeking transfer to TPW. Thus, based on their option, they have been transferred to TPW. On such transfer, ARSIs have foregone their initial ranking list prepared at the time of direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector. Thus, mark based ranking along with the option was considered at the time of initial recruitment for the purpose of posting selected candidates to ARW and TPW. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Ranjith Singh's case (supra) has no 9application for the reason that Hon'ble Supreme Court considered fixation of seniority amongst recruitees at the initial stage in the said case. In the present case, dispute arose on transfer of serving Sub-Inspectors from ARW to TPW. Therefore, the seniority is to be fixed based on Rule 25(a) of TNPSS Rules.

¶5Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State would reiterate, by stating that dispute in the present case is about fixation of seniority amongst Sub-Inspectors, who all are already working as Sub-Inspectors in ARW and TPW. It is not about fixation of seniority in the initial recruitment. Thus, ratio laid down in Ranjith Singh's case (supra) cannot be applied. In the present case, Page10 of 16 Department has to apply Rule 25(a) of TNPSS Rules. Accordingly, transferred ARSIs ought to be placed below Sub-Inspectors, who all are already serving in TPW.

¶6This Court has considered rival submissions made between parties to the lis.

¶7Applicability of Rule for fixation of seniority is to be considered in the present case. Uncontroverted facts between parties are that all Sub-Inspectors involved in the present dispute relating to seniority were recruited in the year 2010, pursuant to the Recruitment Notification No.110 dated 01.04.2010. A perusal of Notification would show that at the time of initial Direct Recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors, marks obtained by selected candidates along with preference (option) exercised by them would be considered. Accordingly, they would be posted either as ARSIs or TSIs. On issuance of appointment orders, they are accordingly posted and serving in their respective Wings and their seniority is maintained separately. After serving about 10 years, ARSIs expressed their willingness to serve as TSIs. Government considered their request and transferred them as TSIs. Page11 of 16

¶8In G.O.Ms.No.446, Home dated 27.05.2003, Government stated that seniority of transferee ARSIs in the post of TSIs shall be fixed with reference to the provisions contained in Rule 25(b) of TNPSS Rules. Relying on the said Government Order, Appellants would submit that their seniority is to be fixed based on the marks obtained in the initial recruitment. In this context, it is relevant to consider the scope of Rule 25(b) and Rule 25 (a) of TNPSS Rules and its applicability. Rule 25(a) and Second Proviso to Rule 25(a) reads as under: "25 (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 further that in the case of Sub-Inspectors appointed by transfer from Sub-Inspectors (Armed Reserve) in category 5, in class I of these Rules or by recruitment by transfer from Sub-Inspectors in category 2 in rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 as the case ,may be, irrespective of their actual date of such appointment. Seniority shall be fixed below the direct recruits in which they were recruited to their respective feeder categories."

¶9What was set aside by Apex Court in Ranjith Singh's case is Sixth Proviso to Rule 25(a) of TNPSS Rules issued in Page12 of 16 G.O.Ms.No.868 Home (Police VI) Department dated 21.11.2017. Therefore, Rule 25(a) and Second Proviso to Rule 25(a) is not connected with the judgment in Ranjith Singh's case, where seniority amongst initially directly recruited candidates alone was considered and not the seniority in respect of Sub-Inspectors, who all are transferred from ARW to TPW. Rule 25(b) of TNPSS Rules reads as under: "(b) The transfer of a person from one class or category of the services to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purpose of seniority, and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the date of his first appointment to 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."

¶10A close reading of Rule 25(b) would show that it is all about fixation of seniority amongst transferee Sub-Inspectors. In other words, seniority amongst Sub-Inspectors either in ARW or in TPW. Thus, Rule 25(b) has no application in respect of Sub-Inspectors transferred from ARW to TPW. Therefore, in respect of transfers made from ARW to TPW, Rule 25(a) and Second Proviso would be applicable.

¶11Second Proviso to Rule 25(a) of TNPSS Rules in unambiguous terms, states that irrespective of their actual date of appointment, seniority shall be fixed below direct recruitees in which they were recruited in respective feeder categories. Therefore, it is all Page13 of 16 about fixation of seniority between two different wings, where different kinds of Police training are provided. Sub-Inspectors appointed in ARW are provided with separate training programme and Sub-Inspectors initially appointed in TPW are imparted separate Police training. When, at the willingness of Sub-Inspectors working in ARW, transfer was effected to TPW as Sub-Inspectors, their seniority is to be fixed below Sub-Inspectors serving in TPW, who all are already working there and their seniority became settled. In other words, transferee Sub-Inspectors from ARW are to be placed below Sub-Inspectors, who are all recruited and posted initially in TPW. There is no inter-se dispute amongst Sub-Inspectors appointed in ARW or TPW. Seniority dispute in the present case is all about fixation of seniority of transferee Sub-Inspectors on their transfer to TPW. Therefore, question of considering initial marks obtained by candidates in the common recruitment may not arise at all.

¶12Once marks and option exercised are considered at the time of initial recruitment in the year 2010 and after their appointment at their choice to different wings, separate seniority is maintained and after serving about 10 years, further willingness is given to post them as TSIs, and on such transfer, Rule 25(a) Second Proviso is to be applied. Therefore, ARSIs, on their transfer to TPW are to be placed below TSIs, who all are serving in the Department from the date of their initial date of Page14 of 16 recruitment from the year 2010. In other words, seniority of TSIs shall remain undisturbed and transferred ARSIs are to be placed below TSIs.

¶13Learned Single Judge in the Writ Order impugned also considered the fact that ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjith Singh's case has no application to the facts of the present case relating to fixation of seniority amongst transferee ARSIs and TSIs.

¶14In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court could be able to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that finding given by Writ Court in the impugned order is in consonance with Rule relating to seniority applicable for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in respect of two different Wings, namely ARW and TPW. Thus, Writ Order stands confirmed. Consequently, the present Writ Appeals are dismissed.

¶15At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that ARSIs, who were already transferred to TPW have not yet been placed in the seniority list at all.

¶16In view of the above submission, Department is directed to ensure that seniority of Armed Reserve Sub-Inspectors (ARSIs) is fixed in accordance with Rule 25(a) and Second Proviso of TNPSS Page15 of 16 Rules. Accordingly, their promotions are to be considered, as and when their turn comes. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AR To:

¶1The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶2The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai 04 Page16 of 16 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. AR 09-07-2026