ORDER :

P. Madhavi Devi, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in implementing the rule of merit-cum-seniority for its employees working from 2009 onwards as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Rules 26(a) and 3-A of APSEB Service Regulations and in violation of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to extend the benefit of rule of merit- cum-seniority to all its employees since 1986, under direct recruitment, duly revising the seniority list and promotions given to the candidates under reservation. category, who filled the backlog vacancies, having been selected under common notification for all classes and pass any other order or orders as deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing the respondents have taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is not an individual aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, but is an association of employees and therefore, it is in the nature of public interest litigation and it is submitted that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters and it is only by the person who is aggrieved by the decision that may come before this Court. It is further argued that none of the employees have challenged the decision of the respondents to implement the rule of merit-cum-seniority for its employees only from 2009 onwards. It is submitted that no representation has been received from any of the employees so far.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the decision taken by the respondents affects all the employees and the principle of merit-cum-seniority is applicable to all classes of employees, the association has taken up issue by riling the present writ petition and that it is accordingly maintainable.

4. In view of the above submissions, on 13.09.2022 this Court has observed that the preliminary objection about the maintainability of writ petition would be decided first and if the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is maintainable, the matter will be reposted for hearing in detail on merits of the issue.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner association is maintainable:

(i) the Writ Petition No. 47125 of 2018 filed by the very same writ petitioner which had been entertained by this Court and has been disposed of vide orders dated 04.02.2019;

(ii) the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthur and another v. M. Vijayakumar and another, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 638 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2016, alongwith other petitioners dated 01.10.2021 for the proportion that even if the rights of the parties have been crystallized for more than almost two decades and upsetting those at this stage, would cause great heart-burn amongst employees in the cadre, the seniority should be based on the merit list of selection and that the list made on the basis of roster point could not be permissible in law and therefore, the respondents are bound to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court and determine the inter se seniority on the basis of selection of TNPSC and not on the basis of roster point;

(iii) the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 298, for the proportion that Union or an Association represents a large body of persons with common grievance and therefore, narrow concept of cause of action aggrieved by an individual litigation has become obsolescent in some jurisdictions and the writ petition by an association is maintainable.

6. In order to decide the preliminary objection abou