The judgment emphasizes the importance of seniority as a civil right and highlights the need to rectify mistakes committed by the official respondents in matters of seniority.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Other Language 4(3)/34422/2011, dated 01.04.2014, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Other Language 4(3)/34422/2011-1, dated 06.07.2013 and quash the same as illegal.)

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order, dated 01.04.2014, confirming the order passed by the second respondent, dated 06.07.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 6 were initially joined as Junior Assistant. At present, the first petitioner is working as Deputy Tahsildar (Election) at Periyakulam. The second petitioner - The petitioners and the private respondents were selected in the Group IV examination through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) for the year 1993-1994. On account of the marks secured by the candidates, the candidates were placed in the main list and initially, the candidates were appointed as Junior Assistant. The respondents 4 to 6 were not placed in the main list as they had secured lesser marks than the petitioners. The selected candidates joined on various dates depending upon the vacancies. While that being so, initially the first petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Coimbatore District on 06.03.1995, completed probation thereafter, transferred from Coimbatore to Theni District on 23.11.1998. The second petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant at Coimbatore on 24.10.1994, completed probation and subsequently, was transferred to Theni District on 08.03.2000. When the petitioners were transferred to Theni District, the respondents 4 to 6 were working as Typist in Theni District and at that point of time, they have not even completed the probation. Hence, the petitioners were placed ahead of the respondents 4 to 6 in the list of approved probationers. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant in the year 2002, by including their names in the list of Assistant and the respondents 4 to 6 were not promoted. Hence, in the cadre of Assistant, the petitioners were senior than the respondents 4 to 6. However, the District Revenue Officer, Theni, vide proceedings, dated 03.04.2001, published a supplementary list for the year 2000. In that, the respondents 4 to 6 were included and also promoted as Assistant, on 03.04.2001.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the said District Revenue Officer is not competent to draw the supplementary list. In fact, a query in this regard was raised by the second respondent as early as on 12.11.2003, as drawing the supplementary list is against the Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. However, no response was received. The promotion of the respondents 4 to 6 was bad at the inception as they have not completed the Junior Assistant training as contemplated under Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. However, the State Government, considering the welfare of the respondents 4 to 6, vide G.O.Ms.No.567 Revenue Department, dated 04.09.2006, relaxed the condition that they should complete Junior Assistant training. While that being so, the petitioners were promoted as Deputy Tahsildar on 16.11.2009 and the petitioners are working from that date onwards without any complaints and their names were included in the panel of Deputy Tahsildar fit for the promotion of Tahsildar for the year 2013. The respondents 4 to 6 were initially appointed as Typist at Madurai District on 30.12.1994, 26.12.1994 and 26.12.1994 respectively. They were originally included in the waiting list. By reason of bifurcation of Madurai District, the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 6 are seniors in the promoted cadre and the respondents 4 to 6 are promoted only subsequent to the petitioners. However, the respondents 4 to 6 had not