JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned memo, dated 12.06.2015 in Na.Ka.No.8314/2014/K.2 and the proceedings, dated 22.05.2014, in Na.Ka.No.04/2014/K.2, passed by the 3rd respondent in so far as placing the petitioner between Punithavathi and Thilagavathi to quash the same and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to place the petitioner between K.Govindarajan and Mullaivanam in the seniority panel for the post of Block Development Officer.)

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned memo, dated 12.06.2015 in Na. Ka. No. 8314 / 2014 /K.2 and the proceedings, dated 22.05.2014, in Na. Ka. No. 04/2014/K.2, passed by the 3rd respondent in so far as placing the petitioner between Punithavathi and Thilagavathi to quash the same and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to place the petitioner between K.Govindarajan and Mullaivanam in the seniority panel for the post of Block Development Officer.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected by TNPSC for Group IV service and the petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant on 31.10.1994. The petitioner passed the required department test on 28.12.1998 and was promoted as Assistant. The petitioner applied for mutual transfer and the second respondent by his proceedings, dated 15.02.2000 transferred the petitioner from Pudukkottai to Thanjavur district in the place of Devadass and the petitioner joined the service on 17.04.2000. The above order of mutual transfer was passed under Rule 20 b (i) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. The said Devadas is senior to the petitioner in service.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Rule 20 (b) (i) the said Devadass was given the petitioner's place in the seniority list in Pudukkottai District. The petitioner's seniority should have been fixed based on the first appointment in the service, i.e., 31.10.1994. The petitioner submitted representations from the date of transfer to the Thanjavur unit to the fixed the petitioner's seniority as per Rule 20 (b) (i). The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not even placed in the seniority list and he was left out from the seniority list. The petitioner's seniority should have been fixed based on the date of his first appointment because the petitioner was transferred in mutual transfer. The petitioner has submitted representations on 09.07.2001, 25.10.2005 and 23.03.2007. By proceedings, dated 02.04.2007, the Joint Director, Regional Institute of Rural Development, Pattukkottai, has forwarded the petitioner's request for fixation. Subsequently, vide proceedings, dated 14.07.2008, the Joint Director has sent another proposal for fixation. Ultimately, vide proceedings, dated 04.04.2008, the third respondent included the petitioner's name in the seniority list as on 01.01.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was placed behind several persons who were juniors in the date of first appointment. The petitioner joined the Thanjavur unit in the year 2000. The petitioner was placed in the seniority list by not taking the date of joining in the year 2000. The petitioner should have been placed in the seniority list, based on the date of appointment and due to the delay caused by the third respondent, the petitioner's name was not included in the seniority list. Consequently, the petitioner was not posted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I, which is a requirement for promotion as Deputy Block Development Officer. Even the petitioner's representation was forwarded but the same was kept pending.

4. Thereafter, by an order, dated 22.05.2014, the respondents fixed the petitioner's seniority as per Rule 20 b (i) and placed the petitioner between Govindharajan and Mullaivanam. In the order, the third respondent has stated that the petitioner was not posted as Rural Welfare Ser