IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AM.Asokan .... Petitioner Vs

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer (General), Water Resources Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. .... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Letter No.1766/A1/2023-6 dated 20.09.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to revise the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from the petitioner's initial date of appointment and consequently re-fix the seniority in the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer with all resultant monetary and other service benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated

20.09.2023 passed by the first respondent, thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioner to revise his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from his initial date of appointment and to re-fix his seniority in the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer with all monetary and other service benefits.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3.The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer by the second respondent on 06.09.1983 under the Rule 10(a)(1) of the General Rules for State and Subordinate Service Rules (General Rules) and joined the post on

06.09.1983. The petitioner was selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and his service was regularized by order dated 15.04.1986 from the date of his initial appointment.

4.A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer under Rule 10(a)(1) on 06.09.1983 and his services were regularized under Rule 23(a)(1). The petitioner's seniority was fixed as 115 by strictly following the rule of reservation and the order of rotation as per Schedule-V, based on the TNPSC ranking for the year 1983-1985 selection, which was adopted by the second respondent. The petitioner did not challenge the seniority at the relevant time. Retrospective regularisation does not confer any right to seek revision of seniority without the concurrence of the TNPSC.

5.Further, it is revealed that as per Rule 23(a)(i) of the General Rules and Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, seniority is determined by the order of placement in the list prepared by the recruiting agency, based on TNPSC ranking and reservation policy, and not by the date of commencement of probation. Accordingly, the seniority already fixed for the petitioner is lawful and valid. It is also observed that the case of N.N.Thiagarajan relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable and inapplicable. In that case, the revision of seniority was granted only pursuant to specific judicial orders, which were in personam and cannot be applied generally. The petitioner himself has admitted that the TNPSC has categorically stated that seniority cannot be revised from the date of temporary appointment. Hence, no parity can be claimed.

6.Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking revision of his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from the date of his initial appointment, on par with one N.N.Thiyagarajan, who was appointed and joined on 15.08.1984,