Case Note & Summary
The case concerned a writ appeal filed by five individuals who were appointed as Junior Training Officers through the District Employment Exchange in 1995 in the Department of Employment and Training, Government of Tamil Nadu. Their seniority in the initial cadre was fixed based on the 200-point communal roster system under Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Over time, they were promoted to higher positions including Principal of Government Industrial Training Institute. In 2015, dissatisfied with their seniority, they made a representation seeking revision, which was rejected by the authorities. They then filed W.P. No. 8451 of 2016 challenging the rejection. The single judge dismissed the writ petition on April 19, 2023, holding that the seniority fixation was proper under the rules. On appeal before the Division Bench, the core legal issue was whether the appellants were entitled to a revision of seniority in the cadre of Junior Training Officer after such a long delay, and whether the fixation under the roster system was valid. The appellants contended that their seniority was not correctly fixed. The respondents argued that the fixation was done as per Rule 35(a) and that the belated challenge was not maintainable. The Division Bench, per Justice S.M. Subramaniam, noted that there was no dispute that seniority was fixed following the 200-point roster system. The appellants were aware of their seniority position from the time of appointment. They waited until 2015 to seek revision, and the representation was rightly rejected. The single judge had correctly found that the seniority fixation adhered to the rules. Finding no infirmity, the appellate court dismissed the writ appeal with no costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. Thus, the court upheld the seniority fixation and rejected the claim for revision, emphasizing that a belated challenge to seniority when the party was conscious of the position from inception cannot be entertained.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority Fixation - Roster System - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 35(a) - The seniority of Junior Training Officers appointed through the Employment Exchange is fixed based on the 200-point communal roster system. Appellants' seniority was fixed under this system and they were aware of it from the time of appointment. The court found no infirmity in the fixation. Held that the writ appeal is dismissed. (Paras 2-3) B) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Challenge to Seniority After 20 Years - The appellants sought revision of seniority in 2015 for appointments made in 1995. The court observed that the appellants were aware of their seniority position since appointment, and the representation made after a long delay was rightly rejected, and the writ court's dismissal was upheld. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to revision of seniority in the post of Junior Training Officer after a long delay, and whether the fixation of seniority based on the 200-point roster system under Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules was valid
Final Decision
Writ appeal dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. The court upheld the seniority fixation under Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules based on the 200-point roster system, finding no infirmity. The claim for revised seniority after a delay of about 20 years was rejected.
Law Points
- Seniority of Junior Training Officers appointed through Employment Exchange must be fixed based on 200-point communal roster system under Rule 35(a)
- belated challenge to seniority after 20 years not maintainable
- parties aware of seniority from appointment cannot seek revision long after
