The order of regularization of the promotees with retrospective effect from the date of their induction made them count their seniority from the date of their entry in the promotional post, and thus, the direct recruits could not claim seniority over them.

M.M. Sundresh, J.

Though the issues involved in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal are not exactly similar, being overlapping each other, they have been taken up and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. We prefer to take the Writ Appeal first, as the adjudication will help the disposal of the Writ Petition.

3. The appellants herein are the direct recruits in the post of Assistants. The private respondent and Others were promoted as Assistants from the feeder category. Initially, they have been promoted in the post of Assistants on a temporary basis. Thereafter, in the year 2014 - 16.06.2014, by the order of the District Collector, Tuticorin, temporary promotions of the promotees were regularized with retrospective effect from the date of their induction. In the meanwhile, the appellants were appointed directly as Assistants, which is obviously after the temporary promotion of the promotees. Under those circumstances, the present Writ Petition was filed claiming that the promotees, who are working in the cadre of Assistants now, will have to be placed below the appellants, who are the direct recruits.

4. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition by taking note of the proceedings dated 16.06.2014, by which, the promotees were regularized with retrospective effect.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there has to be a difference between a promotee and a direct recruit. Admittedly, the promotees were working on a temporary basis in the promoted post of Assistant. Before the order of regularization, the appellants have been appointed as Assistants. Therefore, the promotee Assistants will have to be placed below them. To support his contentions, the learned counsel has made reliance upon the following judgments:

"(i) Sanjay K.Sinha-II v. State of Bihar, (2004) 10 SCC 734;

(ii) K.Madalaimuthu v. State of T.N, (2006) 6 SCC 558;

(iii) S.Sumnyan v. Limi Niri, (2010) 6 SCC 791; and

(iv) G.Panneerselvam and Others v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Chennai-600 015 and Others [W.A.Nos.811 of 2011, etc. batch, dated 17.04.2018].

6. The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the promotees would submit that the order dated 16.06.2014 has not been challenged. It is not an irregular promotion. Promotion has been made on a substantive vacancy. It is not as if there was a ratio that is being maintained,

7. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, the promotees have been regularized from the date of their initial entry. Though the order promoting them was a temporary one and did not give them any right, the subsequent order of regularization from that date onwards would certainly make them to count their seniority from the date of their entry in the promotional post. Suffice it to say that the said order has not been put into challenge. There is no law, which prohibits such an action, as the promotees were appointed indeed in substantive vacancies. In such view of the matter, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the case on hand. We are also not dealing with 10(a)(i) appointments which are made de hors the rules. Here, we are dealing with the inter se seniority in a promoted post, insofar as the promotees are concerned and direct recruitment insofar as the appellants are concerned. Suffice it to say that at the time of entry into the promotional post by the promotees, the appellants were never in the picture. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

W.P.(MD)No.17885 of 2018:

8. The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioners is that though they were appointed in substantive vacancies on a permanent basis, they have been placed below th