SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 250

RAJESH BINDAL, VIJAY BISHNOI
M. Thanigivelu – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthy, Adv. Ms. S. Varsha, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. M. Mahamani, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Priyan, Adv. Mr. Atharva Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Srishti Ghoshal, Adv. Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. A Velan , AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Ms. Akansha Bhola, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Ashwin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Makan, Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR Ms. Srishti Ghoshal, Adv. Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals concerning inter-se seniority. (Para 2 , 3)
2. summary of high court's findings on seniority. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments on behalf of the board. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. arguments on behalf of internally selected candidates. (Para 12 , 13)
5. analysis of board proceedings relevant to the case. (Para 15 , 18)
6. conclusion and order allowing appeals. (Para 19 , 25)
7. court's reasoning on how seniority should be determined. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

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.

3.2. 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 cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top