Revisions to seniority lists in public service must comply with established legal principles regarding merit and prior judicial directives, preserving previously established ranks unless lawfully challenged.

ORDER :

P.T.ASHA, J.

The writ petitioners seek to challenge the proceedings of the second respondent in Proc.No.56857/2021/EE1.2 dated 20.10.2021.

2. The petitioners herein though holds the post of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer in Rural Development Department in different Districts, however, the order impugned, is one and same, the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by a common order.

3. The short facts which have given rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows :

a) The petitioners were appointed in the post of Assistant Engineer in 1998, pursuant to the notification issued by the third respondent in the year 1997. The second respondent had published the seniority list in concurrence with TNPSC way back in the year 1998, and it is this list that is operating as the seniority list as on date. Subsequently, by operating the said seniority list, the inter se seniority list was prepared in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and by virtue of the said seniority list, the panel of Assistant Engineer fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was prepared and the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers. The details of the individuals/ petitioners’ date of appointment, their promotion and their seniority list are tabulated below for ready reference :

b) The petitioners would submit that the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer was published in the year 2004 with regard to the marks obtained by the candidates and as there was no objections to the same, the seniority list was finalised. By operating this seniority list, the panel of Assistant Executive Engineer who are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer were prepared and the petitioners herein were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 17.09.2009, 19.06.2009 and 29.05.2009 respectively. The petitioners in W.P.No.6548 of 2022 and W.P.No.6593 of 2022 hold the said post of Executive Engineers till the filing of the writ petition whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.6554 of 2022 was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 23.02.2021.

c) The petitioners would submit that in 2007, an inter se seniority list was published among the decree holders and diploma holders and the said seniority list was also prepared in accordance with the seniority list originally prepared in the year 1998. The seniority lists in different cadres were published and promotions had been effected in the year 1998 and there were no complaints from any quarters.

d) While matters stood thus, the second respondent through the impugned proceedings, had published the revised seniority list stating that the seniority list of all the Assistant Engineers recruited in the year 1997- 1998 are revised on the basis of merits. Therefore, the seniority list which was fixed in the year 1998 and which was in operation for the last two decades, was sought to be revised through the impugned proceedings, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners and similarly placed persons. The impugned notice would mention that the revision was in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.10.2021 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.638 of 2017.

e) The petitioners would submit that they were unaware of the proceedings of the Supreme Court as they were not the parties to the said judgment.

f) The petitioners would submit that on verification, they had learnt that one employee from their Department had filed the contempt petition before the Supreme Court, which was heard along with other contempt petitions, and the orders of the Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No.687 of 2021 had promoted the issuance of impugned