Seniority lists finalized before March 10, 2003, are protected from revision, even if they were based on roster points instead of merit, following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the Bimlesh Tanwar case and subsequent clarifications.

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to revise the petitioner’s seniority in the select list of Assistant Engineers of Rural Development Department for the year 1997 by placing the petitioner at Sl.No.5 in the place of the third respondent herein and to grant the petitioner consequential promotions such as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 29.10.2004, Executive Engineer with effect from 12.08.2008 and Superintending Engineer with effect from 09.05.2014, the date of promotion of the third respondent herein with due seniority on notional basis.

ORDER

This Writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

“to direct the respondents herein to revise the petitioner’s seniority in the select list of Assistant Engineers of Rural Development Department for the year 1997 by placing the petitioner at Sl.No.5 in the place of the third respondent herein and to grant the petitioner consequential promotions such as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 29.10.2004, Executive Engineer with effect from 12.08.2008 and Superintending Engineer with effect from 09.05.2014, the date of promotion of the third respondent herein with due seniority on notional basis.”

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

3. The major grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents failed to publish the seniority list for the post of Assistant Engineers (Rural Development) in Panchayats – 1997 on the basis of the merit list determined by marks obtained by the respective candidates. Instead, the respondents erroneously maintained roster-based seniority even after the candidates had entered service and that the fundamental principle relating to drawl of seniority list was that it should be based on merit list of selection and that the list drawn based on roster point can have no application for the purpose of seniority list.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and others reported in 2003 (5) SCC 60, and SLP(C).No.2886 of 2016, filed by the petitioner herein, seeking clarification with regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bimlesh Tanwar’s case (supra).

5. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP(C).No.2886 of 2016 is extracted as under:-

“14. Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned AAG, contrary, submitted that by efflux of time, much water has flown. He submitted that the rights have been accrued between the parties for decades and upsetting the same at this stage would have serious repercussions. In the alternative, Shri Tiwari submitted that it will be appropriate that this Court determines the cut off date and that cut off date should be the first judgment of the Madras High Court. He further submitted that for carrying out the exercise, this Court should appoint a Committee to be cases will have inasmuch as 10.76 lakh considered. It is submitted that the State is not equipped with the machinery to complete such a herculean task.

15. As already discussed hereinabove, the Division Bench in the first judgment has clearly held that the cases before it were not individualistic in nature to be decided on the basis of facts arising in each case. The cases arose only on one principle i.e. as to whether seniority should be as per the merit reckoned by the TNPSC or as per roster point. The Division Bench clearly held that the seniority should be on the basis of the merit reckoned by the TNPSC and not as per the roster point. This Court while the dismissing the Special Leave Petition affirmed the view of the High Court holding that after the judgment of this Court was pronounced in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra), the pr