Seniority among Assistant Engineers must be determined by the appointment date per Regulation 97 of TNEB, not by the joining date, ensuring equal treatment and compliance with service regulations.

ORDER :

1. The challenge in this writ petition was initially to the suitability list issued by the second respondent vide letter dated 02.03.2013, and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to place the petitioners senior to respondents 3 to 14 in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) for the years 2003 to 2011 and to consider their case for further promotion.

2. Pending consideration of the writ petition, a revised seniority list dated 27.04.2013 was issued, stating that certain names had been erroneously omitted in the impugned letter dated 02.03.2013. This Court, by order dated 29.04.2013 passed in W.M.P.No.2 of 2013, observed that any promotion granted would be subject to further orders to be passed in the miscellaneous petition. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Petition seeking amendment of the prayer, which was allowed.

3. By way of the amendment, the petitioners challenge the letter dated 02.03.2013 and the Memo dated 22.04.2013 issued by the second respondent, to the limited extent of placing the names of the private respondents above those of the writ petitioners. The petitioners also seek consequential directions to place them senior to respondents 3 to 14 in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) for the years 2003 to 2011, to empanel the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers, and to grant them further promotion in accordance with law.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

4.1. The petitioners claim to be holders of a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering. Except for petitioners Nos. 2, 13 to 16, and 18, the remaining petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) by direct recruitment and joined service in February 2006. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 18 were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) on compassionate grounds and joined service in December 2006. Petitioners Nos. 13 to 16 were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) by re-designation, upon acquiring the B.E. degree, in the year 2006. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 were appointed by internal selection from the feeder categories.

4.2. In the above factual background, the second respondent issued a suitability list dated 05.02.2013, which was subsequently revised on 27.04.2013. The grievance of the petitioners is that, although they were appointed in the year 2006, and the private respondents were appointed only in the year 2007, the private respondents were placed senior to the petitioners in the suitability list. According to the petitioners, such placement is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the service regulations of the respondent Board.

5. Mr. M. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) in the year 2006, whereas the private respondents were appointed by internal selection on 06.01.2007. Therefore, the placement of the private respondents above the petitioners is contrary to the Service Regulations of TANGEDCO, particularly Regulation 97 of the TNEB Regulations.

6. Per contra, Mr. K. Rajkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent–TANGEDCO, placed reliance on the proceedings dated 30.12.2006 issued by the Senior Personnel Officer (Recruitment), TANGEDCO, to substantiate that the private respondents were appointed pursuant to those proceedings, following approval of the list of private respondents by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 29.12.2006. It was submitted that the suitability list impugned in the writ petition is strictly in accordan