1. Directly recruited Assistants challenge seniority list placing promote Assistants above them. Inter se seniority dispute in Tamil Nadu Rural Development Department. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Srimathy, J
A.L. Premkumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
W.P.(MD).Nos.7638 and 7833 of 2015
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H. Mohammed Imran, M/s. Ajmal Associates
For the Respondents: D. Farjana Ghoushia, J. Anand Kumar, T. Antony Arul Raj
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H. Mohammed Imran, M/s. Ajmal Associates
For the Respondents: D. Farjana Ghoushia, J. Anand Kumar, T. Antony Arul Raj
Seniority in services with multiple recruitment methods (direct and promotion) is determined by the actual date of appointment to the post, regardless of recruitment cycles or higher educational qualifications, as per Rule 35(aa) and the TN Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
Headnote:(A) General Rules in Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Service rules - Rule 35(aa) - Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 - Section 40(2) - Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules - Rule 17 - Inter se seniority between directly recruited Assistants and promoted Assistants - Seniority to be determined based on the date of appointment to the post. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Higher qualification - Possession of a degree by directly recruited Assistants does not grant them preference in seniority over promoted Assistants who meet the prescribed qualifications. (Para 14)
(C) Training delays - Delays in sending an employee for mandatory training (e.g., Bhavani Sagar Training) are the responsibility of the employer and cannot be used to penalize the employee's seniority. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Directly recruited Assistants joined service on 24.12.2012 and challenged a seniority list dated 26.02.2015. They contended they should be placed above promotees because they were recruited against earlier vacancies and held higher qualifications. The promotees had joined the post of Assistant in June 2012.
Findings of Court:
The court found that under Rule 35(aa) and Section 40(2) of the 2016 Act, seniority is fixed by the date of appointment. Since promotees joined in June 2012 and direct recruits joined in December 2012, the seniority list is legally valid.
Issues: Whether seniority should be fixed based on the date of joining the post or based on recruitment cycles and educational qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: When more than one method of recruitment is used for a post, seniority is determined by the actual date of appointment to that post, irrespective of the recruitment cycle or higher educational qualifications.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
- seniority
- appointment
- service rules
-
training
- bhavani sagar training (Para 13)
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Direct recruits claim seniority based on examination year or cycle; promotees claim seniority based on actual date of appointment as per rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Rule 35(aa) and Section 40(2) mandate seniority based on date of appointment. Promotee assistants joined earlier, hence seniority valid. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Where multiple recruitment methods exist, seniority is determined by date of appointment to the post, not by examination year or notional backdating. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed. Impugned seniority list upheld. No order as to costs. (Para 16 )
6. How is inter-se seniority determined when post is filled by both direct recruitment and promotion?
Seniority is determined with reference to the date on which the person is appointed to the service, class, category or grade, under Rule 35(aa) and Section 40(2). (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Can a directly recruited candidate claim seniority based on the year of examination or vacancy year?
No. Seniority cannot be claimed before the candidate actually assumes charge of the post, as per Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules. (Para 15 )
8. Does higher educational qualification entitle a direct recruit to higher seniority over promotees?
No. When the rule permits promotion based on prescribed qualifications, merely possessing a higher qualification does not entitle one to preferential seniority. (Para 14 )
9. Can delay in sending an employee for mandatory training be held against that employee for seniority purposes?
No. Belatedly sending a candidate for training is the employer's mistake and cannot be held against the candidate for determining seniority. (Para 13 )
W.P(MD)No.7638 of 2015
1.A.L. Premkumar
Assistant,
O/o. The Assistant Director (Audit),
Collectorate, Theni,
Theni District. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C.Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai-600 003.
3.The Director/Commissioner,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
4.The District Collector,
Theni District,
Theni.
5.M.Subathara,
Assistant,
Panchayat Union,
Aundipatti,
Theni District.
6.V.Palaniraj
Deputy Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union,
Cumbum,
Theni District.
7.K.Murugan
Deputy Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
8.P.Sivakumar,
Deputy Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union,
Chinnamanur,
Theni District.
9.S.Subbrani,
Deputy Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union,
Chinnamunnur, Theni District.
10.S.Geetha,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
Aundipatti,
Theni District.
11.R.Rathi,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
K.Mayiladumparai,
Theni District.
12.S.Sumathi,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
Theni, Theni District
13.M.Balamurugan,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
Cumbum, Theni District.
14.P.Muthumariappan,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
K.Mayiladumparai,
Theni District.
15.S.Chellaraja,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
16.V.Radhakrishnan,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
Bodinayakanur, Theni District.
17.R.Kannan,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
Periyakulam, Theni District.
18.M.Murugan,
Rural Welfare Officer I,
Panchayat Union,
Chinnamanur, Theni District.
19.S.Maliga,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Theni, Theni District.
20.M.Krishnaveni,
Assistant, District Collectorate (Development),
Theni, Theni District.
21.V.Sethupathi,
Assistant,
District Rural Development Agency,
Theni, Theni District.
22.P.Kesavan,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Cumbum, Theni District
23.M.Nagarani,
Assistant,
O/o.Assistant Director (Audit),
Theni, Theni District.
24.A.Thavaraja,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Periyakulam,
Theni District.
25.A.Sithik
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Aundipatti, Theni District.
26.S.Sridharan
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Chinnamanur, Theni District.
27.V.Meenakumari
Assistant, District Collectorate (Development),
Theni, Theni District.
28.M.Santhi
Accountant, Panchayat Union,
Periyakulam, Theni District.
29.T.Paranjothi,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
30.S.Valli,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District.
31.G.Sathish,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District.
32.S.Uthayamanimala,
Assistant,
O/o.Assistant Director (Audit),
Theni, Theni District.
33.A.Jeyaprabha,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District.
34.P.Annalakshmi,
Assistant,
District Collectorate (Development),
Theni, Theni District.
35.T.Kaliappan,
Accountant, Panchayat Union,
Chinnamanur,
Theni District.
36.S.Suresh,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Chinnamanaur,
Theni District.
37.V.Mariappan,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
38.M.Raja,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
K.Mayiladumparai, Theni District.
39.P.Sheela
Accountant, Panchayat Union,
Theni, Theni District.
40.S.Chitra
Assistant, District Rural Development Agency,
Theni, Theni District.
41.K.Vijayalakshmi,
Assistant, Panchayat Union,
Aundipatti, Theni District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned seniority list issued by the fourth respondent in his proceedings ப.அ.எண் 7639/2014/ஆ.1, dated 26.02.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to place the petitioner's being the directly recruited Assistants ahead of the promotive Assistants in the inter seniority as on 01.01.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran,
For M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For R-1, R3 & R4 : Mrs.D.Farja
