IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2004

M.PACHIAPPAN & ORS. ....APPELLANTS

VERSUS

S. MARKANDAM & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS

WITH  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.18811-18820/2004

O R D E R

The present appeal concerns the issue with regard to the seniority  

of  the  appellants  vis-a-vis  respondents.    The  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  

published a seniority list of the appellants as also of the respondents.  Earlier a  

provisional  seniority  list  was  published,  which  was  circulated  by  an  order  

dated 19.1.1996.  Some of the employees, who were part of the said seniority  

list, were aggrieved by the seniority positions ascribed to them and filed their  

objections. The said objections were considered by the official respondent.  We  

are  informed  that  the  said  objections  were  rejected  by  an  order  dated  

10.10.1996  and  a  final  seniority  list  was  published  on  22.10.1996.   It  is,  

however, pointed out before us that the respondents herein, who filed original  

application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,  challenged only  

the  order   dated  19.1.1996  by  which  the  provisional  seniority  list  was  

1

circulated.  However, during the pendency of the aforesaid petition before the  

Tribunal, the respondents/applicants filed an amendment application, in which  

they sought  to  challenge the order dated 10.10.1996 whereby the objections  

filed against the provisional seniority list were rejected.  The said prayer for  

amendment of original application was, however, rejected by the Tribunal on  

the ground that the said prayer is barred by limitation as one year period had  

expired  from  the  date  of  order  which  was  sought  to  be  challenged  in  the  

amendment application.  This narration of facts makes it crystal clear tht the  

final seniority list published on  22.10.1996 was not challenged.

The  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative  Tribunal  decided  the  issue  

raised before it and the said decision went in favour of the appellants herein  

directing for giving higher seniority positions to the appellants.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein filed a  

writ  petition  in  the  Madras  High  Court.   By  order  dated  26.8.2003,  the  

aforesaid writ petition was allowed and the seniority positions of the appellants  

herein  were  directed  to  be  shown  below  the  seniority  position  of  the  

respondents.   

Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment  and  order  of  the  High  

Court, present appeal was filed which is listed today for hearing.  During the  

course of hearing, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

2

appellants,  has pointed out and brought to our notice that the respondents,  

who  had  filed  the  original  application  before  the  State  Administrative  

Tribunal,  did  not  challenge  the  final  seniority  list  which  was  before  the  

Tribunal and the same held the field and continued to govern the parties as the  

same was never challenged.   The decisions, which were rendered by the State  

Administrative  Tribunal  as  well  as  by  the  High  Court  pertain  only  to  the  

provisional seniority list.   It was submitted that unless and until the legality  

and validity of the final seniority list is challenged by the respondents herein,  

neither the appellants nor the respondents could get proper and appropriate  

relief.   At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents states  

that  he  may be  given  an  opportunity  to  challenge  the  validity  of  the  final  

seniority list so that the entire issue with regard to the seniority position of the  

appellants as well as of the respondents is settled once and for all.

On  going  through  the  records  we  find  that  subsequent  to  the  

filing of the present appeal by special leave and during the pendency of this  

appeal, the employees who were shown in the impugned seniority list have still  

been further promoted on the basis  of  the seniority list  that is  available on  

record.  

In  the  light  of  the  submissions  made  by  the  learned  counsel  

appearing  for  the  respondents,  we  have  gone  through  the  record  and  on  

consideration thereof, we find that by an order dated 9.2.2004 of this Court, it  

3

was made clear that any subsequent consequential action or promotions, if any,  

would be subject to the untimate result of this appeal.  Subsequent to the said  

order, the official respondent has issued an order dated 30.5.2008, whereby a  

list of selected candidates of Firka Surveyors for the year 1993 was published.

 We are  also  informed that  the  aforesaid  list  of  the  selected  

candidates of  Firka surveyors is  also based on the final  seniority list  which  

remained unchallenged.   After the publication of  the final  seniority list,  the  

provisional  seniority  list  gets  substituted  by  the  final  list.   Since  further  

promotions have also been made, the validity of which is also not challenged, in  

our opinion nothing survives in this appeal.  This civil appeal is accordingly  

disposed of.  In view of the special facts and circumstances of this case and in  

view of the subsequent development, this order has been passed which shall not  

be considered as precedence  in any other cases.  

In terms of  the aforesaid order, the application for deletion of  

respondent no.8 from the array of parties also stands disposed of.  Further, the  

order passed here in the Civil  Appeal  No.926 of  2004 shall  also govern the  

connected Special Leave Petitions Nos.18811-18820 of 2004 and these special  

leave petitions are also disposed of accordingly.   There shall be no order as to  

costs.

..........................J. (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)      

4

..........................J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)           

NEW DELHI, MAY 20, 2009.

5