The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide notice to affected parties in cases of revision of seniority, as emphasized by relevant legal precedents.

Mr.A.P.Baskar, 3rd respondent herein, then Assistant Executive Engineer, Madurai Corporation, Madurai, filed W.P.No.30152 of 2011, for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash G.O.2D No.113, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MEIII) Department dated 01.12.2011, issued by the Secretary to Government, MA&WS (MEIII) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, and the proceedings of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, in Roc.No.28388/2011/F1 dated 16.12.2011 and consequently, to direct 2nd respondent to promote him notionally, as Assistant Executive Engineer from 20.12.2011, the date on which, the appellant joined as Assistant Executive Engineer, with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

2. The 3rd respondent joined the service as Assistant Engineer, by direct recruitment on 7th December' 1998. The appellant was appointed as public works overseer on 22nd August' 1990 and thereafter, was promoted as Junior Engineer on 25th January' 1996. Later, the appellant acquired B.E. Degree on 21st December' 2001 and consequently, re-designated as Assistant Engineer. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, prepared a seniority list for the category of Assistant Engineers, as on 31st December' 2006, vide proceedings, dated 5th April' 2010, after publishing a provisional seniority list. The 3rd respondent was placed at Sl.No.24. The appellant, who acquired B.E. Qualification on 21st December' 2001 was placed at Sl.No.72. The seniority list was published on 5th April' 2010. Based on the seniority list of Assistant Engineers, two panels for promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, were drawn and published on 19th April' 2010 and 28th July' 2011 respectively. The name of the 3rd respondent was placed at Sl.No.15 in the panel for the year 2011-12. The name of the appellant was not included in the panel, as he did not come within the zone of consideration. The appellant submitted a representation to the Government, complaining that his seniority was not correctly fixed and requested to re-fix the same, taking into account the date of his initial appointment to the post of Junior Engineer viz., 25th January' 1996. The Government, without issuing notice to the 3rd respondent or other affected persons, recognized the seniority of the appellant and placed him at Sl.No.2A in the panel of Assistant Engineers, fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers for the year 2010-11.

3. On the challenge made by the 3rd respondent, the question framed by the Writ Court was that the appellant, who got B.E. Degree on 17th December' 2001, would get a march over the 3rd respondent, who was appointed as Assistant Engineer directly on 2nd December' 1998. The rule position considered by the Writ Court was that a Junior Engineer on acquiring the qualification of degree in Engineering would be re-designated as Assistant Engineer from the date of acquiring such qualification and therefore, the Writ Court observed that the Government cannot be heard to say that such of those Junior Engineers, who have acquired the qualification at a later point of time would be given re-designation as Assistant Engineer retrospectively, from the date on which, they were originally appointed as Junior Engineers.

4. Taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan reported in 2010 (3) Scale 272, State of U.P. v. Dinkar Sinha reported in (2007) 10 SCC 548 and H.S.Vankani v. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 4 SCC 301 and also of the fact that in case the appellant had come up with a case that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer at an earlier point of time and that his juniors were placed above him, necessarily, all those who would be affected adversely on account of revision of seniority should have been given notice and tha