Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by 18 petitioners, all Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) in TANGEDCO (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board), challenging the suitability list dated 02.03.2013 and subsequent seniority lists dated 22.04.2013 and 27.04.2013 issued by the second respondent (Chief Engineer, Personnel). The petitioners sought to quash these lists to the limited extent that the names of private respondents (respondents 3 to 14) were placed above them, and sought directions to place them as seniors to the private respondents in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) for the years 2003-2011, and to empanel them for promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer and further promotions. The petitioners also sought notional promotion with effect from 26th August 2013 and consequential benefits. The background of the dispute is that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) on various dates between 2003 and 2011, and they claimed that they had been continuously officiating in the cadre, whereas the private respondents were appointed later but were placed above them in the seniority list. The petitioners argued that seniority should be determined based on continuous officialion as per Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board Service Regulations, not the date of appointment. The respondents, including TANGEDCO and the private respondents, opposed the petition. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the seniority list was not in accordance with Rule 35(a) and quashed the impugned lists to the extent they placed private respondents above petitioners. The court directed the respondents to re-draw the seniority list based on continuous officialion and to notionally promote the petitioners to Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 26th August 2013, and to grant further promotions and consequential benefits. The court also noted that the private respondents who had been dismissed from the petition (R10 and R13) were not entitled to any relief. The petition was allowed with the above directions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Continuous Officialion - Rule 35(a) of Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board Service Regulations - The dispute pertains to the fixation of seniority of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) in TANGEDCO. The court held that seniority must be determined based on the date of continuous officialion in the cadre, not the date of initial appointment. The impugned seniority list was quashed to the extent it placed private respondents above petitioners, and the respondents were directed to re-draw the seniority list in accordance with Rule 35(a) and grant consequential benefits. (Paras 1-22) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the impugned seniority list and direct re-drawal, holding that the petitioners had a legitimate expectation of being placed senior based on their continuous officialion. The court also directed notional promotion with effect from 26th August 2013 and further promotions. (Paras 1-22) C) Service Law - Promotion - Notional Promotion - The court directed notional promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 26th August 2013 and further higher promotions prior to the promotion of private respondents, with all consequential benefits. (Paras 20-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) for the years 2003-2011 prepared by TANGEDCO is valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to be placed senior to the private respondents based on continuous officialion.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned seniority lists dated 02.03.2013, 22.04.2013, and 27.04.2013 are quashed to the limited extent of placement of private respondents above petitioners. The respondents are directed to re-draw the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) for the years 2003-2011 in accordance with Rule 35(a) of the TNSEB Service Regulations, placing the petitioners senior to respondents 3 to 14. The respondents are further directed to notionally promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 26th August 2013 and to grant further higher promotions prior to the promotion of private respondents, with all consequential benefits. No costs.
Law Points
- Seniority determined by continuous officialion
- not date of appointment
- Rule 35(a) of TNSEB Service Regulations
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
- Principles of natural justice
- Legitimate expectation
- Doctrine of prospective overruling.
