Promotions and seniority must strictly conform to service regulations, particularly concerning departmental test qualifications, to maintain organizational integrity and prevent arbitrary favoritism in career advancements.

ORDER :

R.N. Manjula, J.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in (Per.) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.239 dated 29.10.2012 and the impugned Memorandum No.38763/A1/A12/2013-1 dated 23.07.2013 with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to revise the seniority of the petitioners, as per the recommendations of the Note File No. 042049/385/G.30/G.301/2013 of the respondents 2 & 3 dated 24.1.2014 on the basis of passing of 'Departmental Test for Accounts Officers' and on par with the 4th respondent and consequently award all service benefits as eligible to the petitioners pending disposal of the above writ petitions.

2. Heard Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in WP.Nos.33075 & 33085/2018 ; Mr.R.Saravanakumar, learned cousnel for the petitioner in WP.No.27483/2014 and Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned cousnel for the petitioner in WP.No.20908/2018 ; Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing for TANGEDCO and Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the private respondents and perused the material available on record.

3. The petitioner in WP.No.20908 of 2018 has filed the writ petition to call for the records of the impugned order dated 29.10.2012 issued by the 1st Respondent in (Per.) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.239 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the seniority of the petitioner and place him in an appropriate place in the seniority list, and to consider him for further promotion and other attendant benefits. The proceedings of the 1st Respondent in (Per.) CMD TANGEDCO Proceedings No.239 dated 29.10.2012 restored the seniority of the 6th respondent [B. Rajeswari] by placing her at the sl. no. 3-A above Ranganathan and below V.Savitha in BP[Ch.] No. 206 SB dated 29.11.2004. The petitioner has entered into service as Assistant Accounts Officer [AAO] in the Tamil Nadu Electrical Board on 12.07.2000; he was sponsored through the employment exchange and reported for duty on 12.07.2000. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Accounts Officer in the year 2005 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Financial Controller in the year 2007 and was further promoted as Financial Controller in the year 2014.

4. As per the TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD SERVICE REGULATIONS , those who have entered into service as Assistant Accounts Officer or Accounts Officer by direct recruitment should pass the Departmental Test within a period of three years of probation or at least within the time of extension of probation, if any. Without a pass in the departmental examinations, no person is entitled to be promoted to the next category.

5. The maximum period for which the probation can be extended is only for a further period of 2 years. So the total qualification period that will be available for probation is only 3 years plus 2 years extension, which is equivalent to 5 years. The petitioner had completed the departmental exam on 23.12.2004 within the prescribed time limit and became qualified for promotion as per the Service Rules. However, by violating the conditions, the official respondents had promoted the respondents 5 and 7 and re-fixed the seniority of the 6^th respondent without giving any opportunity to make any representation by the affected parties. The petitioner has also given a representation to the respondents to restore the original seniority in the promoted category, but the same was not accepted.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents 5 to 7 did not complete the departmental test within the pr