JUDGMENT : The perennial inter se dispute between what may be labelled as the promotees and the direct recruits in the commercial tax department does not seem to see a light at the end of the tunnel till now. This dispute has gone on for years together with the battle being taken right till highest Court. We may notice that a part of the responsibility for this is on the State Government on account of the fact that there has been some flip-flop on the part of the State Government on its stand possibly on account of the importance of the offices held by these officers and with an endeavour to find some 'equitable solution'. The dispute, however, has not been resolved resulting in the appeals we are hearing along with certain writ petitions. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties over a number of days. Suffice to say that one set of parties represented in W.A. No. 2280 of 2011 as appellant and respondents have a slightly different case. That we are saying so, as it is their submission that though the battle may have been fought right till the Supreme Court, the war does not end with that. This is so as in terms of their submission certain crucial rules were never brought to the notice of the Court or not considered correctly in their perspective. In that matter, we have reserved judgment today. Needless to say that if the appellant in that appeal succeeded, the whole process would have to be nullified and to begin de nova, an aspect accepted by all the learned counsel for parties. 3. Fortunately, on the principles to be applied, there is no disagreement vis-a-vis the other matters now. It is in these circumstances it is agreed that a consent order may be recorded as to how the State Government would proceed qua the rights of other parties, but subject to the fate of the appeal referred to aforesaid. 4. The parties in the present matters, thus, agree that the four principles as set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1454 of 1987 decided on 10.02.1999 (between State of Tamil Nadu vs. S. Sundararaj & Others), which formed the basis of the Division Bench Judgment, would undoubtedly apply and they are extracted as under from the Supreme Court judgment:- 1. Each year should be taken as a unit for fixing the inter se seniority. 2. Persons not actually appointed in the year 1966 should not be included in 1966 year's list and that seniority should be determined with reference to the date of their joining as Joint Commercial Tax Officer, and 3. The date on which an officer commences probation is the proper criterion for fixing the inter se seniority. 4. If there are vacancies out of the required reservation of 20% in the permanent cadre of A.C.T.Os. for direct recruits, any appointment made either by transfer or by promotion cannot be utilised to fill up those vacancies. Such appointments being of a temporary character, whenever direct recruits are appointed through Public Service Commission, they being holders of permanent posts by direct recruitment, they have a right to be appointed to whatever posts that are taken out of the 40% posts reserved for direct recruitment. 5. The matter has got largely simplified also by the statement made by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State Government on 26.07.2016. We extract the order as under:- ''The learned Advocate General states that he has obtained instructions to clarify the position in view of the arguments already addressed before this Court. 2. He states that as per his instructions, there is no quibble and it cannot be so, over the implementation of the Division Bench order of this Court, which has received the imprimatur of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He acknowledges that the seniority list was placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings, but the caveat is that the said seniority list would operate upto the year 2010. This, he say so as the cadre strength remained the same till 2010 when the cadre strength was increased. There was a second increase in the cadre strength in 2013. His submission thus is that once the cadre strength increased, dependant on the ratio between the two groups as prescribed under the Rule and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the seniority list would have to be re-visited. 3. The aforesaid order has been read out, so as to re-confirm that what has been recorded by this Court is what the learned Advocate General states. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the direct recruits in Group-I service. 3. The aforesaid order has been read out, so as to re-confirm that what has been recorded by this Court is what the learned Advocate General states. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the direct recruits in Group-I service. After elaborate arguments, the nutshell of the contention is being set out hereinafter. 5. It is conceded that if there is a seat available in the quota meant for promotees, the promotee will take his seniority from the date when that seat became vacant. If there are some seats remaining vacant in respect of the direct recruitment quota, naturally, they cannot be filled up by promotees. But if direct recruitment seats have been filled up subsequently, in that situation, the seniority of the direct recruits would be reckoned from the date they have entered into the service. 6. The only difference is that it is their contention that the seniority list already drawn up does not meet the parameters, while the stand of the promotees is that it meets the parameters. 7. We may also note that all this is of course subject to the Court disagreeing with the submission of Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel because if he succeeds, then everything will go.'' In the aforesaid, the reference in para 7 is to the submissions in the writ appeal referred to aforesaid. 6. It is, thus, agreed that if the aforesaid statement is implemented in its true letter and spirit, there would be no lis inter se the parties. 7. We may note that the learned Senior Counsel for the impleaded respondents in W.P. No. 17251 of 2016 seeks to persuade use that as a temporary measure, the promotees who are awaiting promotion and may be nearing retirement should be permitted to be promoted against the post of direct recruits. We are afraid that this is something which we cannot permit because this is exactly what has created the controversy in the past. 8. In view of the aforesaid agreed arrangement, we dispose of the writ appeals and the writ petitions with the direction to the State Government to initially wait for our pronouncement in respect of the writ appeal aforesaid and thereafter, proceed to act in terms aforesaid or begin de nova depending on the fate of the writ appeal referred above. 8. In view of the aforesaid agreed arrangement, we dispose of the writ appeals and the writ petitions with the direction to the State Government to initially wait for our pronouncement in respect of the writ appeal aforesaid and thereafter, proceed to act in terms aforesaid or begin de nova depending on the fate of the writ appeal referred above. It is clarified that anything to the contrary which may have been observed by the learned Single Judge would not hold good. 9. Writ appeals and writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.