The court affirmed that the seniority of direct recruits is determined from their date of appointment and training, and not from when their probation commences, countering the High Court's earlier decision.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This judgment will dispose of a bunch of appeals involving identical issues. Vide common judgment¹[Dated 06.09.2024], passed by the Division Bench of the High Court²[High Court of Judicature at Madras], seven writ appeals³[W.A. Nos.2093, 2094, 2095, 2685, 2686 of 2010 and 1443 C 1444 of 2018] were disposed of. The Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the order passed by the Single Bench whereby writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein were dismissed. The dispute pertains to inter-se seniority of the Assistant Engineers (Electrical)⁴[Hereinafter ‘AE’], directly recruited and internally selected candidates. The appellants are the direct recruits, and the private respondents are the internally selected candidates.

3. Briefly, the facts relevant to the issue under consideration, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing, are as follows.

3.1 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board⁵[For short, ‘the Board’] contemplated selection to the post of AE on direct recruitment basis and for internal candidates. Both have their separate quotas.

3.2. Vide Board Proceeding⁶[For short, ‘BP’] No.29 dated 27.11.2000 issued by the Board, written examination was introduced for the selection to the post of AE on direct recruitment basis. Vide another BP No.39 issued on 04.12.2000, for carrying out selection for the post of AE, even for internal candidates, a written examination was proposed. Prior to that, on 03.11.2000, the Board had called for information regarding eligible candidates for appearance in examination for the internal selection quota. It was for the purpose of considering their suitability for promotion as AEs.

3.3 The prospective candidates, seeking selection through internal selection process, challenged the communication dated 03.11.2000 by filing Writ Petition No.20512 of 2000 before the High Court. The High Court granted interim stay on 06.12.2000.

3.4 BP No.35 was issued by the Board on 13.12.2000 providing that all appointed as AE (Training) shall undergo training, for a period of two years including induction training of three months with consolidated emoluments of Rs.7,500/- per month. After carrying out the process of selection in December 2000 on direct recruitment basis, 200 AEs were appointed.

3.5 Subsequent thereto, after due process of selection, 100 more AEs were appointed on direct recruitment basis on 28.03.2001.

3.6 BP No.59 was issued by the Board on 13.11.2001 to dispense with the written examination for internal candidates from the date of issuance of BP.

3.7 BP No.9 issued by the Board on 23.04.2002 pertains to direct recruits providing that on completion of 3 months of intensive training AE (Trainee) shall be designated as AEs and their probation shall commence from the date of joining in the Board and will be for two years.

3.8 Thereafter, the selection process for internal candidates was carried out and the select list was issued on 06.05.2002. Consequently, appointments were made in that quota.

3.9 Writ Petition No.19596 of 2002 was filed by the internal selectees challenging BP No.9 vide which the training period of the candidates selected on direct recruitment basis was reduced from two years to three months. Subsequent thereto, number of other writ petitions were filed claiming the same relief.

3.10 On 31.10.2007, inter-se seniority of AEs selected in the year 2000 was issued. It was revised on 01.04.2008. The same was also impugned before the High Court