P.R. JAYABALAN vs TAMIL NADU

W.P.No.29303 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.P.No.29303 of 2010 and
M.P.Nos.1, 4 & 5 of 2010
CNR: {HCMA010212952010}
1. P.R. Jayabalan
No.257/1, Vellalapuram,
Oottupattrai, Coonoor- 643 105.
2. D. Devaraj,
No.114a LIC Colony.
Rajaji Nagar, Coonoor - 643 102.
3. R. Ganesh
No.11/29-9, Kenthala,
Kattary Post, 643 213.
..Petitioners
Vs
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation, Rep.by its Chairman,
Electricity Avenue, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation
and Distribution Corporation,
Electricity Avenue, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Nilgiris Electricity Distribution Circle,
Udhaghamandalam, Nilgiris District.
4. K.S. Sasikumar Commercial Inspector,
Office of the Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Ayyenkolli,
Gudalur, Nilgiris District,
(Representing Respondents No. 5 To 27)
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.P.No.29303 of 2010
5. R. Janarthanan
6. V.S.Murugan
7. M. Srinivasan
8. B. Ramakrishnan
9. G. Rajammal
10.N. Chandran
11.K. Selvaraj
12.M. Kamalakannan
13.A. Christopher Lesiee
14.B. Rajendran
15.T. Prakash
16.R. Udayakumar
17.G. Joykutty
18.M. Kannan
19.M. Sundaramurthy
20.M. Dominic
21.S.N. Babu
22.S. Rajesh Kumar
23.P. Radhakrishna Kartha
24.J. Philip
25.P. Jayaraj
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.P.No.29303 of 2010
26.A. Sathar
27.A. Oli Ahamed
..Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the seniority list of Commercial Inspectors bearing
Ref.Ku.Aa.No.Ma.Po.Ne.Me.Pava.Ua.Thi.P2 U.Tha1.Ko dt.10.12.2010 issued
by 3rd respondent and consequential order bearing
Ref.No.Ku.Aa.No.622.Ni.P2.NiVa.1. Ka.Ta.Aa 2010 dt.18.12.2010 issued by
3rd respondent calling for the suitability of the candidates and to quash the same
as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Judgement of this Court in
W.P.No.17026 of 2006 and consequently to direct the respondents to promote
the petitioners to the post of Foreman Gr.1 as per the Judgement dt.9.2.2010
passed by this Court in W.P.No.17026 of 2006.
For Petitioners: V. Govardhanan
For Respondents: Mr. B.Sekar For R1 To R3 – No Appearance
Mr.A.lokesh for Mr.A.Sivaji for R6
Mr.y.Ramanaiah for R7 to 12, 14, 15, 17 and 21
R4, 5, 13, 16, 18 to 20, 22 to 27 – Not ready in
Notice
ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the seniority list of Commercial
Inspectors bearing Ref.Ku.Aa.No.Ma.Po.Ne.Me.Pava.Ua.Thi.P2 U.Tha1.Ko
dated 10.12.2010 issued by the third respondent and consequential order bearing
Ref.No.Ku.Aa.No.622.Ni.P2.NiVa.1. Ka.Ta.Aa 2010 dt.18.12.2010 issued by
the third respondent calling for the suitability of the candidates and
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.P.No.29303 of 2010
consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of
Foreman Gr.1 as per the order dated 09.02.2010 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.17026 of 2006.
2 Three writ petitioners have collectively filed the present writ
petition challenging the proposed seniority list dated 10.12.2010, in and by
which, the first respondent placed respondents 4 to 27 above the petitioners,
who had exercised their second option pursuant to B.P.(Ch) No.256 dated
12.12.2005. The respondent had a category called “Helpers”, which is basic
category and from “Helper” one can opt for “Wireman” or “Commercial
Assistant”. If the person opts for “Wireman” then next level is “Line Inspector”
and if the person opts for “Commercial Assistant”, the next level is
“Commercial Inspector” and both of them merged together for the promotion to
the post of “Foreman Grade – I”.
3 The impugned proposed seniority list was issued by the third
respondent in the month of December, 2010 on the basis of persons joining duty
till 30.11.2010. The said order was challenged before this Court in the present
Writ Petition.
4 Being that the Writ Petition is of the year 2010, the same was taken
up for final hearing and this Court heard the arguments of the counsel for the
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.P.No.29303 of 2010
petitioner. There is no representation on the part of the respondents 1 to 3.
5 From the impugned order, this Court finds that it is only a draft
seniority list, which enables the officials to verify the mistakes if any with
respect to the name, joining date and date of birth etc., and informing the same
to the third respondent prior to releasing the final list. Even the subject of the
impugned order is only to that effect, which is extracted hereunder:
“ bghUs;: : gzpaikg;g[ 30.11.2010 tiu cs;s
fsg;gzpahsh;fspd; Kjd;ik gl;oay; g[j;jfkhf btspapl
rhpghh;j;J rhd;W nfhUtJ rk;ge;jkhf. – ”
6 The impugned order, being a draft seniority list, cannot be
challenged before this Court, unless and until the final seniority list is released
by the third respondent. In fact, the petitioner also challenged the consequential
proceedings dated 18.12.2010 issued by the Superintending Engineer viz. the
third respondent referring to the impugned draft seniority list. This Court is
unable to understand how a draft seniority list was referred to by the
Superintending Engineer for the purpose of preparation of promotion list.
7 Insofar as the impugned draft seniority list dated 10.12.2010 is
concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same. The petitioner
can have a plausible cause of action only when final seniority list is released by
the third respondent.
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.P.No.29303 of 2010
8 However with respect to the second limb of the challenge regarding
the communication dated 18.12.2010 issued by the Superintending Engineer,
Udhagamandalam, Electrical Distribution Unit, is concerned, asking for
suitability report for preparing the promotion list on the basis of a draft seniority
list is illegal, in view of the fact that the letter dated 18.12.2010 does not refer to
any seniority list subsequent to the impugned draft seniority list.
9 In view of the same, the proceedings dated 18.12.2010 is set aside.
The petitioner is entitled to challenge the final seniority list, if any subsequently
released by the third respondent.
10 In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cgi
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Electricity Avenue, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation,
Electricity Avenue, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Nilgiris Electricity Distribution Circle,
Udhaghamandalam, Nilgiris District.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

W.P.No.29303 of 2010
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J.
cgi
W.P.No.29303 of 2010
27-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )