2021 INSC 0599
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 638 OF 2017
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4954 OF 2016
V. SENTHUR AND ANOTHER      ...PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,
SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU 
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
AND ANOTHER         ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.        OF 2021
[DIARY NO.16048 OF 2020]
IN
SLP (C) NOS. 2890­2894 OF 2016
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.      OF 2021
[DIARY NO. 6415 OF 2021]
IN
SLP (C) NO. 2886 OF 2016
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1848 OF 2018
IN 
1

SLP (C) NO. 2886 OF 2016
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2188 OF 2018
IN 
SLP (C) NO. 2886 OF 2016
SLP (C) NOS. 12114­12117 OF 2021
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1247 OF 2019
IN 
SLP (C) NO. 2886 OF 2016
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 687 OF 2021
IN 
  SLP (C) NOS. 2890­2894 OF 2016
O R D E R
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The   present   contempt   petitions   have   been   filed   by   the
petitioners   praying   for   initiation   of   contempt   proceedings
against   the   alleged   contemnors­respondents   for   willfully
disobeying   the   order   passed   by   this   Court   dated   22 nd
  January
2016 in SLP(C) Nos. 2890­2894 of 2016 and SLP(C) No. 2886 of
2016.
2

2. Brief facts  giving  rise to  the  filing   of the  present  petitions
are as under:­
The contempt petitioners had filed writ petitions before the
Single Judge  of  the  Madras  High  Court  being  aggrieved by   the
fixation   of   inter   se   seniority   list   published   on   29 th
  April   2004.
The   petitioners   along   with   the   contesting   respondents   were
selected in pursuance of the selection process held on the basis
of   the   notification   dated   10 th
  September   1999,   issued   by   the
Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service   Commission  (hereinafter   referred   to
as   “TNPSC”).     Upon   selection,   the   selectees   were   appointed   in
the   Public   Works   Department   of   the   State   of   Tamil   Nadu   and
the Highways Department in the year 2000.
3. After   a   period   of   4   years   from   the   date   of   joining   of   the
selectees,   the   seniority   list   came   to   be   notified   on   29 th
  April
2004.   One R. Balakrishnan made a representation contending
therein   that   though   he   was   a   more   meritorious   candidate
belonging   to   the   Backward   Class   category,   he   was   allotted   to
the General Turn (open category) and kept at Serial No. 172 of
3

the   roster   point.    It  was  however   his  contention   that  the   other
persons   belonging   to   the   Backward   Classes,   who   were   less
meritorious,   were   placed   higher   in   the   list   and   given   seniority
over   and   above   him   since   they   were   placed   against   reserved
vacancies.   The   representation   of   R.   Balakrishnan   was   rejected
by TNPSC vide order dated 20 th
  December 2004, on the ground
that   the   roster   point   itself   determined   the   seniority,   in   view   of
the decision of this Court in the case of   P.S. Ghalaut v. State
of   Haryana   and   Others 1
.     Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   order
dated   20 th
  December   2004,   R.   Balakrishnan   and   few   others
filed various writ petitions before the Madras High Court.   The
said   writ   petitions   came   to   be   dismissed   vide   judgment   and
order   dated   18 th
  October   2012,   passed   by   the   Single   Judge   of
the Madras High Court, on the ground of delay and laches. 
4. Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the   original   writ   petitioners
preferred appeals before the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court.  The  Division  Bench  vide judgment   and  order  dated  31 st
March   2015   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   first   judgment”),
1 (1995) 5 SCC 625
4

allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order dated
18 th
 October 2012, passed by the Single Judge and directed the
official respondents to take the rank assigned by TNPSC to the
selectees,   as   the   basis   for   fixation   of   seniority.     The   Division
Bench also directed TNPSC to issue appropriate orders within a
period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said
order.   The   same   came   to   be   challenged   before   this   Court   by
TNPSC vide SLP(C) Nos. 2890­2894 of 2016.  This Court vide its
judgment   and   order   dated   22 nd
  January   2016,   by   a   speaking
order, dismissed the same.  The present contempt petitions are
filed   contending   non­compliance   of   the   order   passed   by   this
Court dated 22 nd
 January 2016.
5. Certain   developments   which   took   place   in   the   meanwhile
also   need   to   be   noted.   To   overcome   the   first   judgment   of   the
Madras High Court as affirmed by this Court, the State of Tamil
Nadu enacted Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of
Service)   Act,   2016   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   said   Act”).
Section   40   of   the   said   Act   provided   that   the   seniority   of   a
5

person in service will be determined in accordance with the rule
of reservation and the order of rotation.   The same came to be
challenged   in  a   batch   of  writ  petitions  before  the   Madras   High
Court.     The   Division   Bench   of   the   Madras   High   Court   vide
judgment   and   order   dated   15 th
  November   2019   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “the   second   judgment”),   allowed   the   said   writ
petitions.  It declared Sections 1(2), 40 and 70 of the said Act as
ultra vires and unconstitutional. It further directed to redo the
exercise of fixation of seniority within a period of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of the copy of said order.   The said order of
the   High   Court   dated   15 th
  November   2019,   was   challenged
before this Court by filing SLP(C) Nos. 2861­2876 of 2020.  This
Court passed the following order on 6 th
 July 2020:­
“Permission   to   file   Special   Leave   Petition(s)   is
granted.
Application for impleadment is allowed to the extent
of intervention.
There is absolutely no merit in these petitions.   The
Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s) is/are disposed of.”
6

6. After   dismissal   of   the   said   SLPs,   the   official   respondents
had filed review petitions before the Division Bench of the High
Court.   So   also,   certain   contempt   petitions   were   filed   by   the
selectees,   who   were   aggrieved   by   non­revision   of   the   seniority
list.     The   Division   Bench   of   the   Madras   High   Court   vide
judgment   and   order   dated   26 th
  March   2021   dismissed   the
review   petitions,   so   also,   the   contempt   petitions.     The   same   is
challenged   before   this   Court   by   the   selectees,   who   were
aggrieved   by   non­revision   of   the   seniority   list,   by   filing   SLP(C)
Nos. 12114­12117 of 2021.
7. The contempt petitions have been listed before this Court
on   various   dates.   Vide   order   dated   11 th
  February   2021,   this
Court passed the following order:­
“In   the   meanwhile,   the   judgment   dated   22.01.2016
shall   be   implemented.   In   case   the   judgment   is   not
implemented   by   that   date,   the   following   alleged
contemnors/respondents   shall   be   present   in   this
court on the next date of hearing: 
C.P.(C)No.638 of 2017 in C.A.No.4954 of 2016
1) M. Vijayakumar 
7

2) S. Thinakaran 
Dy   No.16048   of   2020   in   SLP(C)   Nos.2890­2894   of
2016: 
1) Dr. S. Swarna 
2) K. Ramamoorthy 
3) K. Nanthakumar 
C.P.(C) No.1247 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.2886 of 2016:
1) K. Shanmugam 
2) K. Nanthakumar 
3) Dr. K.Manivasan 
4) K. Ramamurthy 
C.P.(C)No.1848 of 2018 and C.P.(C)No.2188 of 2018
in SLP (C)No.2886 of 2016: 
1) K. Nanthakumar 
2) S. K. Prabhakar 
3) S. Bakthavathchalam”
8. The contempt petitions have also been listed thereafter on
various  dates.   Today,  we  have  heard  Shri  Prashant  Bhushan,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   petitioners,   Shri
8

C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of TNPSC, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri V. Giri and Shri P. Wilson,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents­
alleged contemnors, at length.
9. Shri Prashant Bhushan submitted that the first judgment
has been merged into the order passed by this Court dated 22 nd
January 2016.   He submitted that in the said order, this Court
has categorically  held that in view of the judgment in the case
of   Bimlesh   Tanwar   v.   State   of   Haryana   and   Others 2
,   the
seniority   list   has   to   be   prepared   on   the   basis   of   merit   list   of
selection  and   that  the   list   drawn   on   roster  point   would   not  be
valid   in   law.     He   submitted   that   the   respondent   authorities
have not implemented the said order, on the contrary, a revised
seniority list is published on 13 th
  March 2021, contending that
the   said   seniority   list   has   been   published   on   the   basis   of   the
orders passed by this Court. He submitted that a perusal of the
said   seniority   list   would   further   show   that   the   said   list   is
prepared   totally   in   breach   of   the   judgment   in   the   case   of
2 (2003) 5 SCC 604
9

Bimlesh   Tanwar   (supra).     It   is   thus   submitted   that   by
publishing   the   said   list,   the   respondent   authorities   have   not
only committed the aggravated contempt of court but have also
committed perjury. 
10. Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri V. Giri
and Shri P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of   the   respondents,   on   the   contrary,   submitted   that   the
contempt petitions are without any merit.
11. In   a   nutshell,   the   contentions   as   raised   on   behalf   of   the
said respondents are thus:­
(i) In the first judgment, the Division Bench of the Madras
High   Court   had   granted   relief   to   the   individual
petitioners.     Understanding   the   same,   the   respondent
authorities   had   issued   a   fresh   seniority   list,   thereby
granting   the   requisite   seniority   to   the   individual
petitioners.
(ii) Perusal   of   the   second   judgment   of   the   Madras   High
Court   dated   15 th
  November   2019,   would   further   fortify
10

that the relief granted in earlier round was restricted to
individual   petitioners.     Relying   on   certain   observations
in   the   said   judgment,   it   is   submitted   that   the   Division
Bench   has   clearly   held   that   the   delay,   laches,
acquiescence   and   accrued   right   would   be   the   relevant
factors   and   as   such,   the   individuals   who   were   not
petitioners in the first round, are not entitled to get the
seniority   as   per   the   first   judgment   of   the   Madras   High
Court.
(iii) That the rights of the parties have been crystallized for
more   than   almost   two   decades   and   upsetting   those   at
this   stage,   would   cause   great   heart­burn   amongst   the
employees in the cadre.
(iv) That some of the employees have accepted the seniority
list   and   now   the   entire   exercise   cannot   be   redone   to
thrust the revised seniority on such employees.
(v) That in any case, the judgment of the Division Bench of
the Madras High Court was capable of being interpreted
11

as applying only to the individuals and therefore, even if
the official respondents have incorrectly understood the
judgment,   the  non­compliance  of  the  directions  cannot
be   considered   to   be   willful   or   deliberate   and   as   such,
the action for contempt would not lie.
12. In   addition,   Shri   Rohatgi   submitted   that   the   contempt,   if
any,   is   of   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court.   He   submitted
that since by the order dated 22 nd
 January 2016, this Court has
dismissed   the   SLPs   albeit   giving   certain   reasons,   the   same
would   not   amount   to   merger,   and   as   such,   it   cannot   be   held
that   the   respondents   have   committed   contempt   of   this   Court.
He   further   submitted   that   if   tomorrow,   merely   upon   dismissal
of SLPs against the judgments of the High Court, the contempt
petitions  are  entertained   contending   contempt   of  this   Court,  it
will   open   a   floodgate   of   contempt   petitions.   He   submitted   that
such   a   practice   would   not   be   conducive   to   the   interest   of
justice.
12

13. Shri   Vaidyanathan   relied   on   the   following   judgments   of
this   Court   in   support   of   his   submissions   that,   in   contempt
proceedings,   the   Court   cannot   travel   beyond   the   original
judgment and order.
Jhareswar   Prasad   Paul   and   Another   v.   Tarak   Nath
Ganguly   and   Others 3
,   Midnapore   Peoples’   Coop.   Bank
Limited   and   Others   v.   Chunilal   Nanda   and   Others 4
,   V.M.
Manohar   Prasad   v.   N.   Ratnam   Raju   and   Another 5
  and
Sudhir   Vasudeva,   Chairman   and   Managing   Director,   Oil
and   Natural   Gas   Corporation   Limited   and   Others   v.   M.
George Ravishekaran and Others 6
.
14. There   can   be   no   quarrel   with   the   proposition   that   in   a
contempt   jurisdiction,   the   court   will   not   travel   beyond   the
original judgment and direction; neither would it be permissible
for   the   court   to   issue   any   supplementary   or   incidental
directions,   which   are   not   to   be   found   in   the   original   judgment
3   (2002) 5 SCC 352
4   (2006) 5 SCC 399
5   (2004) 13 SCC 610
6   (2014) 3 SCC 373
13

and   order.   The   court   is   only   concerned   with   the   wilful   or
deliberate   non­compliance   of   the   directions   issued   in   the
original judgment and order.
15. At   the   outset,   we   may   clarify   that   in   the   present
proceedings,   we   are   only   concerned   with   the   contempt   of   the
order passed by this Court dated 22 nd
 January 2016.  
16. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the issue
before   the   High   Court   in   the   first   round   was   individualistic   in
nature is concerned, it will be relevant to refer to the following
observations passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court in the first judgment:­  
“37. …..
(ii)   The   cases   on   hand   are   not   individualistic   in
nature,  depending   upon  individual dates, facts  and
sequence of events. The cases on hand arise out of a
most   fundamental   question   as   to   the   principle   of
law   to   be   applied   in   the   matter   of   fixation   of
seniority.   The   grievance   of   the   writ   petitioners   was
not individualistic, depending for their adjudication,
upon   distinct   facts.   These   cases   question   the   very
foundation   on   which   seniority   was   sought   to   be
determined   on   principle.   To   such   cases,   the
enabling   provision   under   Rule   35(f)   entitling   the
department   to   summarily   reject   the   claim   of   the
individuals, cannot be invoked.”
14

17. It   can   thus   be   seen   that   the   High   Court   has   clearly
observed   that   the   case   before   the   High   Court   was   not
individualistic   in   nature,   depending   upon   individual   dates,
facts   and   sequence   of   events.     It   has   further   observed   that   it
arose out of the most fundamental question as to the principle
of law to be applied in the matter of fixation of seniority.
18. Having   observed   this,   in   the   operative   part,   the   Division
Bench   of   the   Madras   High   Court   in   the   first   judgment   held
thus:­  
“85.   In   view   of   the   above,   the   writ   appeals   are
allowed,   the   order   of   the   learned   judge   is   set   aside
and   the   writ   petitions   filed   by   the   appellants   are
allowed.   There   will   be   a   direction   to   the   official
respondents   to   take   the   rank   assigned   by   the
Service   Commission   to   the   selectees,   as   the   basis
for fixation of seniority and issue appropriate orders
within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of
a   copy   of   this   order.   There   will   be   no   order   as   to
costs.”
19. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench of the
Madras   High   Court   in   the   first   judgment   issued   a   direction   to
15

the official respondents to take the rank assigned by TNPSC to
the   selectees   as   the   basis   for   fixation   of   seniority   and
appropriate orders were directed to be issued by TNPSC within
a   period   of   4   weeks   from   the   receipt   of   the   copy   of   the   said
order.
20. The basis for allowing the writ petitions by the High Court
was the judgment of this Court in the case of  Bimlesh Tanwar
(supra), which held that the seniority has to be determined, not
on   the   basis   of   roster   point   but   on   the   basis   of   the   seniority
assigned   at   the   time   of   selection   of   the   selectees.     This   Court,
while dismissing the SLPs vide order dated 22 nd
  January 2016,
observed thus:­ 
“The fundamental principle which has been applied
by the Division Bench in the cases on hand relates
to   the   question   as   to   what   should   be   the   basis   for
drawing a seniority list. In that context, the Division
Bench has  noted that  at the time when the  Service
Commission   drew  the  list  in  2000  the  same  was  in
tune   with   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   P.S.
Ghalaut   v.   State   of   Haryana   &   Others,   reported   in
(1995)   5   SCC   625.   The   Court   also   found   that   the
said   list   which   was   approved   by   the   State
Government   did   not   achieve   the   finality   and   that
ultimately when the seniority list came to be issued
16

on   29.2.2004,   by   which   time   the   judgment   of   this
Court   in   Bimlesh   Tanwar   v.   State   of   Haryana   and
others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604 had came into
effect   which   reversed   the   judgment   in   Ghalaut
(supra).   The   Division   Bench,   therefore,   held   that
there   was   no   delay   in   the   challenge   made   to   the
seniority   list.   After   the   emergence   of   the
judgment   in   Bimlesh   Tanwar   (supra),   the
fundamental   principle   relating   to   drawl   of
seniority   list   was   that   it   should   be   based   on
merit   list   of   selection   and   that   the   list   drawn
based on roster point can have no application for
the purpose of seniority list.  
As   the   said   fundamental   principle   was
applied   by   the   High   Court   in   passing   the
impugned judgment, we do not find any merit in
these   special   leave   petitions.   The   special   leave
petitions are dismissed. 
The   learned   Attorney   General   for   India,
appearing   for   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service
Commission,   raised   an   issue   that   with   reference   to
a   contra   view   taken   by   another   Judgment   of
Madurai   Bench   of   the   Madras   High   Court,   at   the
instance of one of the employees an SLP is pending
in this Court. Since the issue is now covered by the
decision   of   this   Court   in   Bimlesh   Tanwar   (supra),
the   pendency   of   the   said   SLP   will   be   of   no
consequence as the said SLP should also be covered
by the said judgment of this Court, namely, Bimlesh
Tanwar (supra).” 
[emphasis supplied]
17

21. It  will  be relevant  to  refer  to  the   following  observations  of
this Court in the case of   Kunhayammed and Others v.   State
of Kerala and Another 7
:­  
“ 27.   A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may
be   dismissed   by   a   non­speaking   order   or   by   a
speaking   order.   Whatever   be   the   phraseology
employed   in   the   order   of   dismissal,   if   it   is   a   non­
speaking   order,   i.e.,   it   does   not   assign   reasons   for
dismissing   the   special   leave   petition,   it   would
neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand
substituted in place of the order put in issue before
it   nor   would   it   be   a   declaration   of   law   by   the
Supreme   Court   under   Article   141   of   the
Constitution   for   there   is   no   law   which   has   been
declared.   If   the   order   of   dismissal   be   supported   by
reasons then also the doctrine of merger  would not
be   attracted   because   the   jurisdiction   exercised   was
not   an   appellate   jurisdiction   but   merely   a
discretionary   jurisdiction   refusing   to   grant   leave   to
appeal.   We   have   already   dealt   with   this   aspect
earlier.   Still   the   reasons   stated   by   the   Court   would
attract   applicability   of   Article   141   of   the
Constitution   if   there   is   a   law   declared   by   the
Supreme   Court   which   obviously   would   be   binding
on   all   the   courts   and   tribunals   in   India   and
certainly   the   parties   thereto.   The   statement
contained   in   the   order   other   than   on   points   of   law
would   be   binding   on   the   parties   and   the   court   or
tribunal,   whose   order   was   under   challenge   on   the
principle   of   judicial   discipline,   this   Court   being   the
Apex   Court   of   the   country.   No   court   or   tribunal   or
parties   would   have   the   liberty   of   taking   or
7   (2000) 6 SCC 359
18

canvassing   any   view   contrary   to   the   one   expressed
by   this   Court.   The   order   of   Supreme   Court   would
mean  that  it has  declared the  law  and  in that  light
the   case   was   considered   not   fit   for   grant   of   leave.
The   declaration   of   law   will   be   governed   by   Article
141   but   still,   the   case   not   being   one   where   leave
was granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply.
The   Court   sometimes   leaves   the   question   of   law
open.   Or   it   sometimes   briefly   lays   down   the
principle, may be, contrary to the one laid down by
the   High   Court   and   yet   would   dismiss   the   special
leave   petition.   The   reasons   given   are   intended   for
purposes of Article 141. This is so done because in
the   event   of   merely   dismissing   the   special   leave
petition,   it   is   likely   that   an   argument   could   be
advanced in the High Court that the Supreme Court
has to be understood as not to have differed in law
with the High Court.”
22. It   is   thus   clear   that   this   Court   in   unequivocal   terms   has
held   that   if   the   order   of   dismissal   of   SLPs   is   supported   by
reasons,   then   also   the   doctrine   of   merger   would   not   be
attracted.     Still   the   reasons   stated   by   the   court   would   attract
applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, if there
is   a   law   declared   by   this   Court   which   obviously   would   be
binding   on   all   the   courts   and   the   tribunals   in   India   and
certainly,   the   parties   thereto.     It   has   been   held   that   no   court,
tribunal or party would have the liberty of taking or canvassing
19

any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court.  Such an
order would mean that it has declared the law and in that light,
the case was considered not fit for grant of leave.
23. This   Court,   while   dismissing   the   SLPs   against   the   first
judgment,   has   clearly   held   that   after   the   emergence   of   the
judgment   in   Bimlesh   Tanwar   (supra),   the   fundamental
principle   governing   the   determination   of   seniority   was   that,   it
should be based on merit list of selection and that the list made
on the basis of roster point, would not be permissible in law.  It
could   thus   be   seen   that   while   dismissing   the   SLPs,   this
Court has reiterated the legal position as laid down in the case
of  Bimlesh Tanwar  (supra) to the effect that while determining
seniority, what is relevant is the inter se merit in the selection
list and not the roster point.
24. It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   though,   the   then   learned
Attorney General had raised an issue with regard to a contrary
view taken by the Madurai Bench of the same High Court, this
Court clearly held that since the issue was now covered by the
20

decision   of   this   Court   in   Bimlesh   Tanwar   (supra),   the
pendency   of   the   SLPs   challenging   the   judgment   of   Madurai
Bench, would be of no consequence inasmuch as the said SLPs
would   be   governed   by   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Bimlesh
Tanwar  (supra).
25. It   is   thus   clear   that   though   it   cannot   be   said   that   the
second judgment of the Madras High Court has merged into the
order   of   this   Court   dated   22 nd
  January   2016,   still   the
declaration of law as made in the said order, would be binding
on all the courts and tribunals in the country and in any case,
between the parties.
26. In that view of the matter, the respondents were bound to
follow the law laid down by this Court and determine the inter
se seniority on the basis of selection by TNPSC and not on the
basis of roster point.
27. At   the   cost   of   repetition,   we   may   clarify   that   though
various   arguments  were  advanced  with  regard  to   the   merits  of
the   matter   by   the   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf
21

of  the  respondent  authorities, we cannot  go into  those  aspects
inasmuch as we are exercising limited jurisdiction of contempt.
Insofar   as   the   lis   between   the   parties   is   concerned,   it   has
achieved finality  by  the order of this Court dated 22 nd
  January
2016.   We   find   that   the   seniority   list,   which   is   purportedly
published in accordance with the order of this Court, is totally
in   breach   of   the  directions   of   this  Court.     A   first   glance   at   the
list   would   reveal   that   various   selectees,   who   have   received
much   less   marks,   are   placed   above   the   selectees   who   have
received   higher   marks.     We,   therefore,   have   no   hesitation   to
hold   that   the   following   persons   named   in   our   order   dated   11 th
February   2021,   are   guilty   of   having   committed   contempt   of
order of this Court:­ 
“C.P.(C)No.638 of 2017 in C.A.No.4954 of 2016
1) M. Vijayakumar 
2) S. Thinakaran 
Dy   No.16048   of   2020   in   SLP(C)   Nos.2890­2894   of
2016: 
22

1) Dr. S. Swarna 
2) K. Ramamoorthy 
3) K. Nanthakumar 
C.P.(C) No.1247 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.2886 of 2016:
1) K. Shanmugam 
2) K. Nanthakumar 
3) Dr. K.Manivasan 
4) K. Ramamurthy
C.P.(C)No.1848 of 2018 and C.P.(C)No.2188 of 2018
in SLP (C)No.2886 of 2016: 
1) K. Nanthakumar 
2) S. K. Prabhakar 
3) S. Bakthavathchalam”
28. We therefore direct the respondents to revise and publish
the   seniority   list   of   the   selectees,   who   were   selected   in   the
selection   process   conducted   in   pursuance   of   the   notification
issued   by   TNPSC   dated   10 th
  September   1999,   strictly   on   the
basis of the merit determined by it in the selection process and
not   on   the   basis   of   the   roster   point.   The   same   shall   be   done
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order.
23

29. Insofar   as   the   issue   with   regard   to   quantum   of
punishment   to   be   imposed   upon   the   aforesaid   contemnors   is
concerned, the matter be kept on 10 th
 January 2022.  We clarify
that on the said date, the persons named in paragraph (25) who
have   been   held   guilty   of   contempt   of   this   Court   by   us,   shall
remain   present   before   this   Court   and   would   be   heard   on   the
quantum of punishment.
30. Insofar   as   SLP(C)   Nos.   12114­12117   of   2021   are
concerned,   in   view   of   the   order   passed   by   us   in   the   contempt
petitions, no order is necessary.  Accordingly, the said SLPs are
disposed of.
…..…..….......................J.
   [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 01, 2021.
24