The seniority of public service personnel is determined based on appointment dates, not on promotion timelines or subsequent training requirements.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

These writ appeals have been preferred by the petitioners in WP(MD).Nos.6374 and 7644 of 2017 challenging the dismissal of their writ petitions by way of a common order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the writ Court.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.WP(MD).No.19784 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner in WP(MD).No.6374 of 2017 seeking to challenge the order of the District Collector, Virudhunagar dated 04.06.2012 and the consequential impugned order dated 30.11.2016. The petitioner had further prayed for a direction to the respondents to draw the inter-se seniority list of Assistants directly recruited through TNPSC and the promotive Assistants by placing the Promotive Assistants below the directly recruited Assistants in the light of Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

3.The private respondents in the writ appeals as well as in the writ petition who were working as Junior Assistants/Typists were promoted as Assistants on 04.06.2012. The writ appellants and the writ petitioner in WP(MD).No.19784 of 2017 were directly recruited as Assistants and appointed on 23.11.2012.

4.One K.Balamurugan who is a direct recruitee had preferred WP(MD).No.6374 of 2017. The other direct recruitees have preferred WP(MD).No.7644 of 2017. Both these writ petitions have been filed with a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus to draw the inter se seniority list of Assistants directly recruited through TNPSC and the promotive Assistants by placing the Promotive Assistants below the directly recruited Assistants in the light of the fact that the Promotive Assistant did not complete one year Junior Assistant training as contemplated under Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and other training required under the Service Rules.

5.The one and only contention of the writ appellants was that the private respondents who are promotive assistants had not undergone training as a Junior Assistant for a period of one year before being promoted as an Assistant. Undergoing this training is a precondition for being promoted as an Assistant. None of the private respondents have undergone such a training. Therefore, their promotion as Assistants is illegal. Once the promotion is illegal, they cannot be placed over and above the directly recruited Assistant merely because they were promoted as Assistants six months prior to the directly recruited Assistants.

6. The official respondents have filed a counter before the writ Court contending that the promotive Assistants were appointed as Junior Assistants in July 2003 on temporary basis and they were appointed in the regular capacity in May 2009. Their services were also duly regularized. The official respondents also relied upon G.O(Ms).No.22, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (E4) Department, dated 18.03.2010 wherein the precondition of undergoing training for a period of one year as Junior Assistant has been given a go-by.

7.The writ Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition on the following grounds:

a).The writ petitioners (directly recruited Assistants) have not questioned the promotion granted in favour of the private respondents. In such circumstances, mandamus cannot be issued to redraw the inter se seniority.

b).The promotee Assistants were appointed prior to the direct recruits and the order of promotion having not been challenged by the writ petitioners, the inter se seniority cannot be redrawn.

c).The writ petitioners have not challenged the issuance of G.O(Ms).No.22, dated 18.03.2010. In the absence of any formal challenge to G.O(Ms).No.22, dated 18.03.2020 placing of promotee Assistants over and above the direct recruitees cannot be found fault with.

d).When the Government has consciously done away with the precondition of one year training as Junior Assistants, the promotion granted to p