IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that seniority is determined based on the date of appointment, and retrospective promotion is essential for the grant of retrospective seniority.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Order No.369/2022 dated 29.11.2022 and quash the same in respect of the fixation of the petitioner's seniority and the third respondent's seniority and direct the second respondent to place the third respondent below the petitioner in the seniority list dated 10.06.2020 issued by the second respondent and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.)

1. The order impugned revising the seniority of the third respondent by placing him above the petitioner in the Combined Seniority List, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is presently working as Assistant (Grade-III Bench Clerk). She was initially appointed as Typist on 20.03.2013. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 18.04.2017. She was deployed as Grade-III Bench Clerk, carrying identical scale of pay as Assistant on 07.08.2019.

3. The third respondent Mr.R.Shanmugam was initially appointed as Steno-Typist on 07.09.1994. He was appointed by way of transfer of service to the post of Assistant on 11.08.2018. He was posted as Bench Clerk on 10.08.2019 and further promoted as Head Clerk on 18.10.2020.

4. The controversy arose with reference to the date of appointment to the post of Assistant. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 18.04.2017, but the third respondent was appointed as Assistant by way of transfer of service on 11.08.2018. Thus, the third respondent Mr.R.Shanmugam was junior to the petitioner in the post of Assistant.

5. It is not in dispute that the Combined Seniority List for both Civil and Criminal Units as on 01.07.2019, was published by the District Court, Nagapattinam in proceedings dated 10.06.2020. The crucial date was 1st July of every year. Thus, the Combined Seniority List as on 01.07.2019 was published on 10.06.2020.

6. In the said list, the name of the third respondent was placed in Serial No.5 and the petitioner's name was placed in Serial No.10. Aggrieved by the said position in the Seniority List, the present writ petition came to be instituted by the petitioner.

7. Mr.P.Rajendran, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, would submit that the third respondent was not even appointed to the post of Assistant on the date when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 18.04.2017 and the third respondent was appointed by way of transfer of service on 11.08.2018. Therefore, suo motu revision initiated by the District Court Judicial Administration is in violation of the rules relating to fixation of seniority.

8. In this context, the rules stipulate that the date of appointment is to be taken into consideration for fixing the seniority. When the date of appointment of the third respondent is falling beyond the date of appointment of the writ petitioner, suo motu revision of the seniority done by the District Judicial Administration by placing the third respondent above the writ petitioner is perverse and to be set aside.

9. Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, would oppose the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, by stating that the ratio of 19:1 is being followed, while considering the names of eligible employees for promotion and by way of appointment through transfer of service respectively. One post of Assistant is allotted for appointment by way of transfer of service from amongst the eligible employees, working in the cadre of Steno-Typist Grade III.

10. In the present case, the name of the third respondent Mr.R.Shanmugam was inadvertently omitted against the one post of Assistant reserved for the employees working in the cadre of Steno-Typist Grade-I in the year 2017. In order to rectify the error, the learned Principal District Judge suo motu initiated revision and co