ORDER :

Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.

All the petitioners herein are the persons, who were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) by way of direct recruitment conducted in the year 2012 in the respondent Board. They approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging Memo No.016424/206/G3/G.32/2020-2, dated 03.03.2025, whereby the inter se seniority list among persons appointed during the recruitment that took place in the year 2012, and the letter dated 21.08.2025, whereby, reports were called for from all the Chief Engineers for preparation of panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical).

2. The case of the petitioners is that, though they were recruited as early as in the year 2012, no final seniority list had been prepared among the Assistant Engineers (Electrical) recruited during the year 2012. Only a tentative seniority list was communicated through CE / Personnel Memo No. 002542/01/G3/G3(2)/2020-9, dated 07.02.2024, and for the first time, the said list has been finalised through impugned memo, dated 03.03.2025. According to petitioners, the inter se seniority has been fixed among the 2012 batch direct recruits by following the roster system and not on the basis of merit secured by the respective candidates in the selection process conducted in the year 2012. A copy of the select list of 410 Assistant Engineer (Electrical) has also been placed before this Court. Further, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 5 SCC 605, it is contended that the action of the respondents in finalising the inter se seniority by following the roster system is illegal and not sustainable.

3. The respondent Board filed a counter affidavit. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Board contended that the impugned seniority list has been prepared strictly in accordance with Regulation 97 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. According to him, the seniority has been finalised based on the approved list of selected candidates, and the impugned list has been prepared in terms of the relevant Regulations. He laid more stress on the word “List of Approved Candidates” used in Regulation 97.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8, contended that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar's has no application to the present case, since no competitive examination was conducted in the recruitment process that took place in the year 2012. According to him, selection was based on marks secured in the qualifying examination and interview, and therefore, in terms of Regulation 97, the approved list would become the seniority list and there is no relevancy of the marks awarded in the said selection process. He also further contended that the seniority list was finalised as early as in the year 2020 and the petitioners have not raised any objection at any point of time.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8 also further contended that the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar has relied more stress on the competitive exam and relative merit being fixed by recruitment agency, unlike in the present case. Therefore, rightly distinguish the case on hand and to say that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar has no application to the case on hand. He also further contended that Regulation 97 mandates that any objection to seniority must be raised within three years. In the present case, a tentative seniority list had already been communicated as early as on 27.02.2020, and no objections were raised by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are barred by delay and laches.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the other impleaded respondents 9 to 39 contended that they are nothing to do with the main dispute that arise for consideration in the writ petition and it is