Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the vacancies were filled by taking into account the “men in position” in both the categories, namely direct recruits and recruitment by transfer, and therefore there was no excess appointment by way of recruitment by transfer. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 7045 of 2006 dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 05:07:49 pm )  W.P. Nos. 29670/2015 & etc., batch 29.07.2009 observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the contention of the writ petitioner that the vacancy arising due to retirement of promotee officer belonging to a particular feeder cadre must be filled up by that category only. The Division Bench held that the department ought to have followed the vacancy based roaster in accordance with the ratio instead of post based roaster, therefore the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is misplaced and contrary to Explanation to Rule 2 of Special Rules.