Seniority in service must be determined from the date of regularisation, not the date of initial appointment, ensuring compliance with legal principles.

JUDGMENT

[ Judgment of the Court was made by N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.]

Aggrieved by the judgment passed in W.P.(MD)No.17449 of 2014, dated 25.01.2018, the State has preferred this appeal.

2.The brief facts of the case of the Writ Petitioners is that they were appointed as Office Assistants in the Panchayat Union Office in Tirunelveli District in the year 1986 and 1989 respectively. On issuance of G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, their services were regularised on completion of ten years. However, the monetary benefits were granted only with effect from 25.10.2006. The next post for their promotional avenue is the Record Clerk/Office Assistant/Night Watchman/Sewing Teacher. For which, by proceedings of the third appellant herein, dated 30.10.2012, the seniority list was published, wherein, the Writ Petitioners' name were figured in Sl.No.98 and 104. However, on 02.01.2014, the third appellant had re-fixed the seniority by conducting a review meeting on 30.12.2013 and a revised seniority list was published, in which the seniority of the Writ Petitioners was downgraded. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition has been filed on the ground that no opportunity was granted to them before issuing the revised seniority list and no show cause notice was given calling for an explanation from the Writ Petitioner.

3.The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition and passed the following order:

“2.The third respondent, who issued the revised combined seniority list has filed his counter affidavit. The third respondent has stated that the revised seniority list was issued in the year 2013 based on the instructions of the second respondent fo fix seniority based on the dates on which the candidates joined in the respective posts. The third respondent would refer to Rule 35 (aa) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules . Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules reads that seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be determined with reference to the date on which he is appointed to the services, class, category or grade. Therefore, as per rule 35(aa), seniority must be fixed based on the date of appointment and not the date of joining. The third respondent has misquoted the rule in question. The request made by the writ petitioners is reasonable and acceptable and in consonance with the aforesaid rule 35(aa) of the Rules. 3.It is also seen that the third respondent has not put the petitioners on notice before downgrading their seniority ranking. The action of the third respondent is also in clear violation of principles of nature justice. Therefore, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the third respondent to fix the seniority ranking of the writ petitioners based on the respective dates of their appointments and not based on the dates of joining in their respective posts.”

4.Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

5.Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Writ Appellants contended that the third appellant had issued the seniority list on 10.10.2013 and he drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, vide letter dated 29.08.2013. The letter had categorically made it clear that the total number of appointment of 933 made in the Rural Development Department, as Fitter Assistant be regularised. Based on the said letter, the third appellant had issued the proceedings, dated 10.10.2013.

6.The learned Additional Advocate General had referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 6 SCC 558 between A.Madalaimuthu and another vs State of Tamil Nadu and others . In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically held as follows: “ 24. On a consideration on the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions cited on their be