Seniority in public service is determined by the rules of the Employment Exchange rather than the date of joining duty.

ORDER

The petitioners challenge the communication dated 30.12.2015 issued by the third respondent, whereby their request to include their names in the seniority list of B.T. Assistants with effect from 27.03.2003, on par with their alleged juniors, namely P.N. Muthulatha and V. Varadhammal, was rejected.

2. The petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers by order dated 17.08.2000 pursuant to the list furnished by the Employment Exchange. As per the appointment order, they were required to join duty in the school allotted by the Education Officer within one week from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioners joined duty on 21.08.2000. Subsequently, they were promoted as B.T. Assistants on 17.06.2008. On learning that their alleged juniors had been promoted to the post of Post Graduate Teachers, the petitioners submitted a representation seeking inclusion of their names in the appropriate place in the seniority list of B.T. Assistants with effect from 27.03.2003, the date on which the said two individuals were promoted. The said request was rejected by the impugned communication.

3. Mr.A.Amal Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners joined duty on 21.08.2000, whereas the said two individuals joined on 23.08.2000. Therefore, promoting the said individuals as Graduate Teachers by overlooking the seniority of the petitioners is arbitrary and discriminatory. He further contended that the date of promotion is not the crucial date for determining seniority; rather, the date of joining duty is the relevant criterion.

Contrary to this settled principle, the petitioners’ claim has been rejected.

4. Per contra, Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, and Mr. S. Gopinathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, submitted that seniority was assigned based on the list maintained by the Employment Exchange, which, in turn, was prepared on the basis of the date of registration. It was contended that the date of joining duty is not the determining factor for fixing seniority. They further submitted that the seniority assigned to the petitioners and to the said two individuals was strictly in accordance with Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

5. The submissions made on either side and the materials placed on record have been duly considered.

6. The facts, as narrated above, are not in dispute and hence are not reiterated. The appointment orders reveal that the seniority positions of the petitioners are as follows: Sarasu at Sl.No.27, J. Jayalakshmi at Sl.No.21, S.Amutha Kousalya at Sl.No.30, and K. Amudhavani at Sl.No.28.

7. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the appointment orders were issued to the petitioners as well as to the said two individuals strictly in accordance with the seniority list furnished by the Employment Exchange. The Employment Exchange maintained the seniority list based on the date of registration. The backlog vacancies were filled through candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Although appointment orders were issued on the same date, the candidates were granted one week’s time to join duty. Therefore, the date of joining duty cannot be treated as the crucial date for determining seniority. Instead, seniority was determined based on the list furnished by the Employment Exchange and adopted by the respondent Corporation.

8. Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules provides that the seniority of a person in a service, class, category, or grade shall, unless reduced to a lower rank by way of punishment, be determined by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or by the appointing author