The right to seniority is not a fundamental right, and the seniority list once published cannot be disturbed at the behest of a person who chose not to challenge it for many years.

In these writ petitions, the issue to be adjudicated is one and the same and hence, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.27645/2013 is a Diploma Holder in Electrical Engineering and he joined the services of the respondent Board on 27.05.1981 as an Electrical Operator and got promoted as Junior Engineer on 16.10.1990. The petitioner in W.P.No.27646/2013 is also a Diploma Holder in Electrical Engineering and he joined the services of the respondent Board on 27.05.1981 and got promoted as Junior Engineer on 10.09.1990 and just after him, the petitioner in W.P.No.27645/2013 got promoted. According to the petitioners, the last person who got promotion in the year 1990 to the post of Junior Engineer is the petitioner in W.P.No.27645/2013 and thereafter in the year 1994, certain electrical operators were promoted as Junior Engineers. The petitioners would further state that on 27.04.2007, the first respondent Board has issued tentative seniority list of Junior Engineers and invited objections on the same and the petitioner in W.P.No.27645/2013 was placed at Serial No.18 and the petitioner in W.P.No.27646/2013 was placed at Serial No.32 and his date of promotion as Junior Engineer was mentioned as 24.06.1994, instead of 10.09.1990 and it is his claim that his name was placed just below Mr.K.Rajakumar, the petitioner in W.P.No.27645/2013 and he has also given his objections in that regard. The petitioners would further state that however persons who are juniors to him, namely the respondents 3 to 11 were placed above them in the proposed seniority list and objections were raised by them and since it has not been taken into consideration, the petitioners herein filed W.P.Nos.4739 and 4738 of 2013 respectively to consider their objections with a further direction to forbear the first respondent from preparing the panel and effect promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) till final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Electrical) is issued. However, without finalizing the seniority list, juniors to the petitioners were promoted to the said post and as per Regulation 21(a) of the General Service Regulations of the first respondent Board, promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is based on seniority. The request made by the petitioners was also rejected and the second respondent has passed an order on 09.05.2013 stating that seniority list initially prepared for the post of Electrical Operator, was on the basis of date of joining and not as per Regulation 21(a) of the General Regulations.

3. The petitioners would further state that at the time of making appointment to the post of Electrical Operators, there had been no selection process and appointments were made based on employment exchange sponsorship and on verification of the educational qualification certificate and that is why, seniority list drawn to the post of Electrical Operator was based on the date of joining and no other method could have been adopted at that point of time and based on the same only, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Junior Engineers (Electrical). The petitioners also expressed their grievance that without notice and hearing, seniority list cannot be altered and the alleged seniority list dated 23.03.1998 was never operated and hence, it cannot be the basis for fixing seniority in the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). The petitioners would further state that by applying Regulation 21(a) at a belated stage, there seniority cannot be pushed down and it cannot be revised after 3 years and the period stipulated therein would also equally applies to the Management. The petitioners had also preferred appeals and were rejected on 12.09.2013 by the first respondent and challenging the legality of the same, the petitioners had filed these writ petitions.

4. Mr.Balan Haridass, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court