Prompt action is required in matters relating to seniority, and belated interference with settled matters can have adverse effects and serious administrative implications.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling for the records from the 2nd respondent pertaining to the cumulative regularization Ref No.6429/N2/1/2017 dated 24.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to include the petitioner name between G.Mary (CNL 6932) who was already retired and V.Uma Maheswari (CNL 6961) which contains the panel year 2004-2005 and thereafter insert her name in the present panel Ref.No. 43945/ N2/2022 dated 13.06.2022 for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade-I.)

1. The Writ petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse in the year 1990. While in service, the petitioner with the permission of the first respondent studied B.Sc. (Nursing) and completed in the year 2004 and thereby she has become eligible for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II in the year 2004 itself. The petitioner's name was listed in the serial No.33 (CNL No.6953) instead of fixing her name between one G.Mary (CNL 6932) who was already retired and V.Uma Maheswari (CNL 6961) in the panel of the year 2004-2005. However, the second respondent has issued promotion and posting order to the petitioner for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II on 6.11.2007 though the petitioner has become eligible for the said post in the year 2004 itself. The petitioner has made several representations to the respondents 2 and 3 regarding seniority of the petitioner from 2004-2005. In the meantime, the petitioner also completed M.Sc. (Nursing) in the year 2013. While so, the second respondent regularised the services for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II from the Panel year 1985 to 2016-2017. However, the petitioner's name was found in the list of regularised Nursing Tutor Grade II for the panel year 2006- 2007. Again, the third respondent prepared a panel for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II for the year 2022-2023 and the same was issued by proceedings in Ref.No.43945/N2/2022 dated 13.6.2022. In the present list also, the petitioner's name was in the same place without any change even though the petitioner's date of birth is senior to other members in the panel. Therefore, challenging the impugned order dated 13.6.2022, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court to revise the seniority of the petitioner.

2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner seeks seniority for promotion to the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II for the year 2004-2005. The seniority for the said post was already fixed in the year 2004 and the same was settled and at this juncture, after the lapse of 18 years, the petitioner cannot seeks to revise the said seniority and therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted.

3. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record.

4. Pursuant to the promotion granted to one Uma Maheswari for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II by the respondent in the year 2006, the petitioner has made representation to the respondents 2 and 3 to revise the seniority, however, the petitioner has not persuaded the request for revision of seniority. Now, after the lapse of 18 years, the petitioner has approached this Court to revise the seniority already drawn in the year 2004 itself.

5. As per Rule 35(f) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, the petitioner has to challenge the seniority drawn for the year 2004-2005 for promotion to the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II, within a period of three years from the date of panel drawn by the respondent. Now, after the lapse of 18 years, the petitioner cannot challenge the seniority drawn for promotion to the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II for the year 2004-2005 which already settled. Further, the petitioner has not impleaded the alleged junior in the present writ petition.

6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the decis