The court affirmed that seniority in promotions is determined by the completion of probation and initial appointment date, emphasizing adherence to prior judicial findings.

ORDER :

G.Arul Murugan, J.

This writ petition is filed challenging the orders of the first respondent dated 11.01.2010 and 20.04.2010 and for a consequential direction to promote the petitioner as Headmistress over and above the fourth and fifth respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, she was initially appointed on 03.12.1990 as a Secondary Grade Teacher on consolidated pay in view of G.O.Ms.No.1524 dated 12.11.1990. In view of G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 08.01.1993, all the teachers who were appointed on consolidated pay from 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 were regularised. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when respondents 4 and 5 were transferred to Karamadai Union and joined duty on 10.10.1991 and 06.07.1994 respectively, they ought to have been placed as junior most in the Union but, however, the petitioner was superseded and respondents 4 and 5 were placed as seniors in the Karamadai Union. The petitioner had submitted a representation objecting to placing her as junior to respondents 4 and 5 and the same was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 06.06.2006.

3. Challenging the rejection order dated 06.06.2006, the order of the third respondent dated 16.05.2006 and the impugned panel dated 20.02.2006, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.19682 of 2006 and by order dated 12.01.2009, the rejection order was set aside holding that placing of respondents 4 and 5 as seniors was wrong and the directions were issued to the official respondents to pass orders based on the orders granted by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1585 to 1624 of 2001 dated 10.04.2008. In fact, the services of the teachers were regularised from the date of the initial appointment as per the orders in the writ appeal. Pursuant to the orders in the writ petition, the petitioner had sent a representation, which also ultimately came to be rejected by the orders of the first respondent dated 11.01.2010. Further, the benefits as per the orders passed in the writ appeal were given effect to and orders were passed for regularisation of the services from the date of their initial appointment by proceedings dated 20.04.2010. Clause 6 of the order specifies that even though regularisations are made from the date of appointment, the incumbents shall not claim promotion from an anterior date as already promotions have been effected as per seniority. Assailing the impugned orders, the petitioner had preferred the above writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that already the order of the first respondent was set aside by this Court and a categorical finding was given that in view of the orders passed in writ appeal, the petitioner ought to have completed probation on 03.12.1992 and in such circumstances, respondents 4 and 5 cannot be placed as seniors to the petitioner. The present impugned order rejecting the claim is only reiterating the earlier order which was set aside. It is his further contention that when the petitioner had completed probation prior to the date when the private respondents got transferred to this Union placing them as seniors is erroneous and the seniority of the petitioner is disturbed thereby taking away her career prospects. Learned counsel further contended that in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the condition imposed in order dated 20.04.2010 in Clause 6 cannot be made applicable as the issue had already been gone into earlier and the petitioner ought to have been placed as senior to the private respondents and therefore sought for indulgence of this Court.

5. Per contra, Mr.P