The main legal point established is that a belated challenge to seniority, failure to join necessary parties, and lack of sufficient cause may lead to the dismissal of a petition.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent relating to his proceeding made on official communication No.F1(A)/ESTT/2006/1793, dated 1.6.2006, and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid and consequently, direct the respondent to restore the petitioner’s seniority as found in the seniority list prepared as on 1.1.1996 fixing in between the names of Thiru.Raja Rathinam D and Thiru.Chandrasekaran T.A besides granting further promotions as per the said order of

0

seniority with all attendant benefits.)

1. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Clerk in the Institute of Correspondence Education, on a temporary basis, by the proceedings of the respondent, dated 24.4.1981. Thereafter, by an order, dated 23.12.1983, the post held by the petitioner, along with that of 174 others, had been made permanent and had been re-designated as `Temporary Junior Assistant’. While so, by an official communication, dated 18.10.1985, the service of the petitioner had been regularized and the post held by him had been re-designated as `Regular Junior Assistant’, with retrospective effect, from 16.11.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner had been promoted as an `Assistant’, in the month of December, 1990, and the said post had been re-designated as `Assistant Section Officer’, by an order, dated 23.9.1994. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner had been included in the selection grade category, on 23.9.2004.

2. It has been stated that in the cadre of `Junior Assistant’, the petitioner’s name was in the Serial No.428, as per the seniority list prepared, on 1.1.1996. The said seniority list had been prepared taking into account the date of the petitioner’s appointment in the substantive post. Similarly, the placements had been given to the petitioner and to the other 174 candidates, with effect from 24.12.1983, considering the date of their regularization and the respective appointments made in the substantive posts. Accordingly, all the 175 temporary appointees, appointed from the year, 1978, had been regularized and re-designated as Junior Assistants. As such, the name of the petitioner was found in Serial No.117, out of 175 similarly placed persons, taking into account the year of appointment and the respective dates of birth.

3. It has also been stated that, on 24.12.1983, the respondent had obtained an undertaking from 175 temporary appointees, who had been regularized, on 23.12.1983, that they would not claim seniority or monetary benefits, for the period from the date of their respective entry into service, till the date of their regularization i.e. 23.12.1983. S 4. It had been further stated that the petitioner, having been promoted as an Assistant, in the year 1990 and as the said post had been re-designated as `Assistant Section Officer’, the next avenue of promotion of the petitioner is that of `Section Officer’ for which the petitioner is eligible. While so, the petitioner came to know that the seniority list had been altered re-fixing his name at the bottom of the list containing the names of the 175 regularized candidates. The said revision of the seniority list had been done without any notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that due to the exigencies that had arisen, the University of Madras, had taken a decision, during the year 1983, to absorb the 175 temporary employees, working in the University, as temporary tabulated/daily wagers. On receipt of the appointment orders, all the staff, except the following five persons, had joined duty, on 24.12.1983. The five persons mentioned below had joined on the different dates mentioned against t