The court affirmed that seniority must reflect the actual date of joining, ensuring fair treatment of employees in public service.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Ref.No.LL1/28907/2022 dated 27.03.2023 and quash the same with consequential direction to the respondents to give retrospective appointment in the post of Forest Watcher on par with the petitioner's juniors on 24.01.1995 by correcting his date of joining as 28.02.1986 instead of 01.12.1986 and confer all consequential benefits within the time frame.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it had been contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis on 28.02.1986. It had been stated that subsequently the Government had issued a Government Order to regularise the service of the Plot Watchers and Social Forestry Workers who have been appointed on daily wage basis. Some of the Plot Watchers were transferred to the Rural Development Department. The petitioner was also similarly transferred and he worked in the Rural Development Department for nearly 42 months and was thereafter transferred to the Panchayat Union Office.

3. In the year 1994, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.332 Environment and Forest (FR.VI) dated 22.12.1994 stipulating that one of the qualification for the post of Plot Watcher should be an educational qualification in SSLC. Accordingly, it had been stated that 425 persons who had passed SSLC had been appointed as Forest Watchers but the seniority was not considered at that particular time. The petitioner had been transferred to the Rural Development Department and was not appointed as Forest Watcher. The Plot Watchers Association had filed O.A.No.197 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and a direction was granted to restore the qualification namely ability to read and write instead of a pass in SSLC. A direction was also given to prepare State wise seniority list.

4. Again, it is the contention of the petitioner that those who had been transferred to the Rural Development Department like the petitioner were not included in the seniority list. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent had issued G.O.Ms.No.65 including the names of those who have been similarly transferred to the Rural Development Department by preparing State wise seniority list. But the petitioner unfortunately found that those who have been appointed subsequent to the petitioner and who were junior to him had been categorised as senior. When the petitioner gave a representation seeking reasons, it was found that his initial date of joining was considered as 01.12.1986 instead of 28.02.1986. It is under those circumstances this writ petition has been filed seeking correction of the initial date of joining as 28.02.1986 and to consider the petitioner over and above the juniors who had been subsequently appointed after 28.02.1996 and to grant necessary terminal and monetary benefits to the petitioner herein.

5. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is relevant to extract para Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 & 11 and the same reads as follows:-

“5. It is submitted that the correct date of joining of the petitioner have not been considered in all the levels and accordingly orders was passed in several occasions. The G.O.Ms.No.72 P & AR Dept. dated 28.01.1983 states that “Revision of the seniority in a post should be submitted to the concerned authority within three years of appointment to a category. Applications received after the said period shall be rejected. However orders resulting from mistake of facts, this instructions are not applicable to revisional case”. Therefore the request of the petitioner shall be considered to fix the revised seniority.

8. It is submitted that the actual joining date of 28.08.1986 in the post of Plot Watcher has not been considered in all aspect to revise the seniority of the petitioner in all the stages. So that the petitioners juniors maybe got their seniority before the petitioner.

9. It is submitted