M. Thanigivelu vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 229
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 862 OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8374 of 2025)
M. THANIGIVELU AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 863-864 OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.9095-9096 of 2025)
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12940 of 2025)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2026.03.11
17:55:57 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 22
V. RANGANATHAN AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 866-872 OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.14044-14050 of 2025)
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
RAJAN AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This judgment will dispose of a bunch of appeals involving
1
identical issues. Vide common judgment , passed by the Division Bench
2 3
of the High Court , seven writ appeals were disposed of. The Division
1
Dated 06.09.2024
2
High Court of Judicature at Madras
3
W.A. Nos.2093, 2094, 2095, 2685, 2686 of 2010 and 1443 & 1444 of 2018
Page 2 of 22
Bench of the High Court had set aside the order passed by the Single
Bench whereby writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein were
dismissed. The dispute pertains to inter-se seniority of the Assistant
4
Engineers (Electrical) , directly recruited and internally selected
candidates. The appellants are the direct recruits, and the private
respondents are the internally selected candidates.
3. Briefly, the facts relevant to the issue under consideration, as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing,
are as follows.
5
3.1 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board contemplated selection to the
post of AE on direct recruitment basis and for internal candidates. Both
have their separate quotas.
6
3.2. Vide Board Proceeding No.29 dated 27.11.2000 issued by
the Board, written examination was introduced for the selection to the post
of AE on direct recruitment basis. Vide another BP No.39 issued on
04.12.2000, for carrying out selection for the post of AE, even for internal
candidates, a written examination was proposed. Prior to that, on
03.11.2000, the Board had called for information regarding eligible
4
Hereinafter ‘AE’
5
For short, ‘the Board’
6
For short, ‘BP’
Page 3 of 22
candidates for appearance in examination for the internal selection quota.
It was for the purpose of considering their suitability for promotion as AEs.
3.3 The prospective candidates, seeking selection through
internal selection process, challenged the communication dated
03.11.2000 by filing Writ Petition No.20512 of 2000 before the High Court.
The High Court granted interim stay on 06.12.2000.
3.4 BP No.35 was issued by the Board on 13.12.2000 providing
that all appointed as AE (Training) shall undergo training, for a period of
two years including induction training of three months with consolidated
emoluments of ₹7,500/- per month. After carrying out the process of
selection in December 2000 on direct recruitment basis, 200 AEs were
appointed.
3.5 Subsequent thereto, after due process of selection, 100 more
AEs were appointed on direct recruitment basis on 28.03.2001.
3.6 BP No.59 was issued by the Board on 13.11.2001 to dispense
with the written examination for internal candidates from the date of
issuance of BP.
3.7 BP No.9 issued by the Board on 23.04.2002 pertains to direct
recruits providing that on completion of 3 months of intensive training AE
(Trainee) shall be designated as AEs and their probation shall commence
from the date of joining in the Board and will be for two years.
Page 4 of 22
3.8 Thereafter, the selection process for internal candidates was
carried out and the select list was issued on 06.05.2002. Consequently,
appointments were made in that quota.
3.9 Writ Petition No.19596 of 2002 was filed by the internal
selectees challenging BP No.9 vide which the training period of the
candidates selected on direct recruitment basis was reduced from two
years to three months. Subsequent thereto, number of other writ petitions
were filed claiming the same relief.
3.10 On 31.10.2007, inter-se seniority of AEs selected in the year
2000 was issued. It was revised on 01.04.2008. The same was also
impugned before the High Court in W.P. 20879/2008.
3.11 On 03.07.2008, inter-se seniority of AEs selected and
appointed in the year 2001 was issued. The same was also the subject
matter of the challenge in W.P. No.20875/2008.
3.12 In the year 2009, AEs appointed on direct recruitment basis in
the year 2000 and 2001 were promoted to the post of Assistant Executive
Engineer on the basis of their seniority.
7
filed by the internal selectees were
4. The writ petitions
dismissed by the Single Bench of the High Court holding that the directly
recruited AEs in the year 2000 and 2001 were entitled to seniority from
7
WP No. 19596 of 2002 & connected matters
Page 5 of 22
the date of their initial appointment. The aforesaid order was challenged
by filing intra-court appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
5. The Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Single
Bench and directed re-drawing of the seniority list treating that all the
candidates were appointed in the year 2002.
6. It is this judgment of the High Court decided a bunch of
appeals which is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court by the
Board as well as the direct recruits. The respondents are the internal
selectees.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
7. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the
Board, submitted that, in the case in hand, on direct recruitment basis
200 candidates were selected in December 2000, whereas 100 were
selected and appointed on 28.03.2001. As against that, the internal
candidates were selected and promoted on 06.05.2002. For the purpose
of determining the issue as to whether the seniority of the direct recruits
is to be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment, including the
period of training or from the date when they were put on probation, after
completion of training, he has referred to Regulation Nos. 10(9), 87 and
8
97 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Service Regulations),1967 .
8
Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Regulations’.
Page 6 of 22
7.1 The argument raised while referring to Regulation 10(9), is
that a person is said to be on duty when he is performing the duties of a
post or is undergoing the probation or training prescribed for the post.
7.2 While referring to Regulation 87(1), it was submitted that a
person is said to be appointed to the service at the time he discharges for
the first time, the duties on a post or commences probation or training
prescribed therefor.
7.3 Referring to Regulation 97 dealing with the seniority, it was
submitted that the seniority is to be determined with reference to the rank
obtained by a candidate in the list of approved candidates by the
appointing authority. It was submitted that the commencement of the
probation is from the date a candidate joins duty, irrespective of his
seniority. This has nothing to do with determination of inter-se seniority of
the recruits from two different sources.
7.4 Explaining the proviso to the aforesaid Regulation, it was
submitted that the same shall be applicable for determination of inter-se
seniority of the direct recruits and the internal candidates in case both
were recruited in the same calendar year. The case in hand does not fall
in that category as the direct recruits were selected in the years 2000 and
2001, whereas the internal candidates were promoted in May 2002.
Page 7 of 22
7.5 It was further argued that the Division Bench of the High Court
has recorded erroneous findings to the effect that the seniority of the direct
recruits is to be taken from the date when their probation started. The
training period is to be excluded.
7.6 In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the
9
judgments of this Court in
R.S. Ajara and Others v The State of Gujarat
10
and the .
State of H.P. v J. L. Sharma
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS / DIRECT RECRUITS
8. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel appearing for
appellants, submitted that the problem arose on account of different B.Ps
issued by the Board. He referred to B.P. No.35 dated 13.12.2000 whereby
B.P. No.29 dated 27.11.2000 was amended. It clearly laid down that an
incumbent shall be placed on probation for two years on completion of
training. However, the same was never implemented. He further referred
to B.P. No.9 dated 23.04.2002 in which it has been noticed that
representations had been made by AE (Trainee) stating that two years’
training period on consolidated pay may be reduced as they are
independently attending to the work attached to the post of AEs, three
months after intensive training. Vide aforesaid circular, the training period
9
1997 INSC 213: (1997) 3 SCC 641
10
1997 INSC 736: (1998) 1 SCC 727
Page 8 of 22
of newly recruited AEs (Trainee) during December 2000 to March 2001
was reduced from two years to three months.
9. Promotions from the quota of internal candidates was made in
May 2002. On 03.06.2002, W.P. No.19596 of 2002 was filed by the
internal candidates who were appointed to the post of AE (Electrical) in
May 2002, praying for the quashing of B.P. No.9 dated 23.04.2002 with a
further direction that the service of the directly recruited AEs (Trainees)
be regularised only on completion of two years from the date of
appointment. It was argued that the aforesaid BP was administrative in
nature and could not override the Regulations, which are quite explicit.
10. The Sigle Bench dismissed the Writ Petitions. However, the
Division Bench, without pointing out any error in the judgment of the Single
Judge, has just reversed the same. The import of the Regulations
applicable to the post has not even been touched. As a result of the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the date of appointment of the
candidates who were appointed later will be ante-dated, whereas the
direct recruits who were appointed earlier shall be deemed to be
appointed later. The interpretation, as given by the Division Bench, runs
contrary to the Regulations. If there was any delay in selection of the
internal candidates, they were to be blamed as they had challenged the
condition of exam provided for their selection. The examination for internal
Page 9 of 22
candidates was prescribed vide letter dated 03.11.2000 and this came to
be reiterated vide B.P. No.31 dated 04.12.2000. The aforesaid BP was
challenged by the internal candidates by filing W.P. No.20512 of 2000 in
which interim stay was granted by the High Court on 06.12.2000.
Subsequently, the conditions for holding exam for internal candidates vide
B.P. No.31 dated 04.11.2000 was withdrawn vide B.P. No.59 dated
13.11.2001.
11. It was further argued that it is the recruitment to the post of
AE (Electrical) and not AE (Trainee). Training is the part of the service as
is evident from the Regulations and after training, the probation starts. It
cannot be argued that for the purpose of counting seniority of the directly
recruited candidates, the period will be counted only from the date the
probation started. In support of the argument, reliance was placed upon
11
judgment of this Court in Govt. of A.P. v. P. Bhaskar .
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INTERNALLY SELECTED
CANDIDATES/PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
12. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the internal selected candidates submitted that the
challenge made by them before the High Court was to the reduction of
period of training for the direct recruits, as the same was affecting their
11
(2008) 11 SCC 687; 2008 INSC 267
Page 10 of 22
seniority. He referred to B.P. No.29 dated 27.11.2000 and B.P. No.35
dated 13.12.2000 providing for training period of 2 years inclusive of three
month induction training for all appointees as Assistant
Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) on a consolidated pay of ₹7,500/- p.m. The
recruitment was subsequent to the issuance of the above B.Ps.
12.1 He further referred to appointment letter dated 15.12.2000
issued to directly recruited candidate in which a specific clause was put in
that after completion of training, the candidate will be placed on probation
for a period of two years on a regular pay scale. The same was to happen
after completion of training for a period of two years on a consolidated
pay. The aforesaid conditions were never challenged by any of the direct
recruits.
12.2 He had referred to another appointment letter dated
27.12.2000 containing similar clause. This also provided that the newly
recruited candidate will have to undergo training for a period of two years.
12.3 The argument was that the recruitment of direct recruits was
made after the issuance of the aforesaid B.Ps. Subsequent thereto, B.P.
No.9 dated 23.04.2002 was issued which reduced the period of training
from two years to three months. The benefit of aforesaid BP was sought
to be given to the candidates who had already been recruited. This was
the reason for the internal candidates to approach the Court. This action
Page 11 of 22
of the Board was affecting the seniority of internal selected candidates.
The High Court had rightly opined that the aforesaid BP should be
considered as prospective and not retrospective. Even referring to
Regulations 89 and 97, the argument is that the seniority is to be counted
only from the date probation starts. This is the opinion of the High Court
as well. There is no error in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The
appeals deserve to be dismissed.
13. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the private respondents while adopting the arguments addressed by Mr.
Nikhil Nayyar, Senior Advocate, submitted that the whole idea of issuing
BP No.9 was to bypass the provisions of Regulation 97 which clearly
provide the manner in which seniority of the direct recruits and the internal
candidates is to be determined. In fact, the private respondents were
eligible in the year 1997 for being promoted. However, the process of
selection was delayed. As a result, there being no fault on their part, their
position in the seniority is being compromised. He submitted that the
delay in the process of promotion of the private respondents was caused
by the direct recruits.
13.1 He further argued that appointment of internally selected
candidates was stalled due to introduction of an exam for them. To
substantiate the same, it was contended that service regulations did not
Page 12 of 22
provide for any such exam and the same was introduced by Board
Proceeding. Even the Single Judge in Para 50 of the order, held that
Board's issuance of BP, introducing written examinations for internal
selectees in violation of service regulations, was the "root cause" for all
the problems regarding fixation of inter-se seniority.
13.2 The learned senior counsel further added that an employee
enters the cadre only when the period of probation starts and not on the
initial date of appointment. This is what Regulation 97 also provides. The
internally selected candidates were rightly aggrieved against BP No.9 vide
which the period of training of direct recruits was reduced as it was
substantially affecting rights of the internally selected candidates, who had
much more experience of working in the Board as compared to the direct
recruits who had just entered the service. The reason for reducing the
period of training is evident from the Note dated 12.02.2002, which also
clearly depicts that the training period was not to be counted for qualifying
service for the purpose of terminal benefits.
DISCUSSION
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant referred record.
15. The dispute in the present case pertains to inter-se seniority
of AEs (Electrical) coming from two different sources, namely, direct
Page 13 of 22
recruits and internally selected candidates. The process is governed by
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967.
16. To appreciate the contentions being raised by the learned
counsel for the parties in our view certain Board Proceedings (BP) issued
by the Board from time to time need to be summed up hereunder:
Brief narration of various BPs issued by Tamil Nadu Power
Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNPDCL), Formerly Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board (TNEB)
S.No. Date Particulars
1. 27.11.2000 was issued by
Board Proceeding (BP) No. 29
TNEB.
BP No. 29 provided for introduction of written
examination for selection of AEs through direct
recruitment. It further provided for consolidated
emoluments of ₹7,500/- p.m. during the two-year
probation period (as against 6 months at Rs.
2,500/- currently) and stated that after successful
completion of probation they will be absorbed as
regular AEs in the regular scale of pay.
2. 03.11.2000 TNEB, by letter No.116790/269/G55/G551/2000-
3, informed Chief Engineers and Superintending
Engineers of TNEB that a written examination is
proposed to be held on 11.11.2000 for internal
selection of AEs. They were directed to send all
eligible and qualified employees to attend the
examination.
3. 04.12.2000 BP No. 31 .
Provided that written examination will be
conducted for promotion to post of AE (Electrical)
even for existing eligible employees who are
qualified.
4. 13.12.2000 BP No. 35 was issued by TNEB, amending para 4
of BP No. 29, as follows:
"All appointees as Assistant Engineer/Electrical
(Trainee) shall be on training initially for a period
of two years including induction training of three
Page 14 of 22
months with a consolidated pay of Rs.7,500/- p.m.
On completion of the training, he/she will be
placed on probation for two years in the time scale
of pay which is applicable to the regulation
Assistant Engineer/Electrical in the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board. "
5. 12.04.2001 BP No. 23 was issued by TNEB, to amend
Annexure I of Service Regulations, as follows:
"Internal Selection and Direct Recruitment shall be
made in the ratio of 1:1. Internal selection shall be
made based on the results of a written test and
also based on a minimum length of service
rendered after acquiring B.E. Degree or equivalent
qualification as may be decided by the Board from
time to time."
6. 23.04.2002 was issued by TNEB. The BP pertained
BP No. 9
to direct recruits, and provided as under:
“ (i) On completion of three months intensive
training the I Assistant Engineers/ Trainee
shall be designated as Assistant Engineers
with the duties and responsibilities of the
regular Assistant Engineers.
(ii) The Assistant Engineers (Trainee) recruited
during December 2000 and March 2001
shall be given the time scale of pay on par
with the regular Assistant Engineers after
completion of 3 months intensive training.
(iii) Their probation shall commence from the
date of joining in the Board and will be for a
period of two years within a continuous
period of three years.”
Page 15 of 22
17. The relevant provisions or the Regulations dealing with the
issue are extracted below:
" 10. Unless there be something repugnant in the subject or
context the terms defined in this chapter are used in these
regulations in the sense here explained :
A person is said to be on duty
(9) DUTY:
a) when he is performing the duties of a post or is
undergoing the probation, instructions or training
prescribed for a post in a class of service;
x x x x
87. (1) Appointed to a Class of Service:
A person is said to be "appointed to a class of service" when
in accordance with these regulations or in accordance with the
Regulations applicable at the time, as the case may be, he
discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the
cadre of such class of service or commences probation,
instruction or training prescribed for members thereof.
Explanation: The appointment of person holding a post borne
on the cadre of one category or class of service or a post in
another category or class of service or to discharge the current
duties thereof does not amount to appointment.
(2) Approved Candidate means, a candidate whose
name appears in an authoritative list of candidates approved
for appointment to any class of service or post borne on the
cadre of a class of service.
Page 16 of 22
x x x x
97. SENIORITY:
(a) The seniority of a person in a class of service,
category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a
lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank
obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn. up
by the Board or other appointing authority, as the case may
be. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the
date on which he joins duty irrespective of his Seniority.
Provided that the seniority of Assistant Engineers (Electrical)/
(Civil)/ Mechanical) recruited both by Internal Selection and
direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1 in a particular calendar
year shall be fixed in the following cyclic order:
1. Internal Selection
2. Direct Recruitment”
Opinion Expressed By The High Court
18. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the Board has
the power to prescribe training as a qualification for appointment.
Consequently, B.P. No. 35, which mandated a two-year training period for
direct recruits, was deemed valid and consistent with the Regulations.
Further, regarding B.P. No. 9, issued on 23.04.2002, reducing the training
period to three months, the Division Bench opined that this proceeding
could not be applied retrospectively to start probation of the direct recruits
Page 17 of 22
from initial joining dates in 2000 or 2001. There cannot be any quarrel with
the aforesaid view expressed by the High Court as it only talks about
period of training of a direct recruit. The Division Bench ruled that direct
recruits could only be considered to have started their probation on and
after 23.04.2002 (the date B.P. No. 9 was issued). Before this date, they
were designated as "trainees" and, by the express terms of the BPs, were
prohibited from exercising the powers and duties of regular AEs. Since
both the direct recruits and the internal selectees were now considered
recruited in the same calendar year (2002), the Division Bench directed
the Board to redraw the seniority list.
CONCLUSION
19. As far as the date of appointment of the candidate from two
different sources of recruitment is concerned, the direct recruits were
selected and appointed in December 2000 to March 2001 whereas the
internally selected candidates were appointed by way of promotion in May
2002.
20. The issue to be considered in the present appeals is as to
what is to be taken as the date of the appointment of the direct recruits. In
our opinion, instead of going into the language used in various BPs issued
by the Board, which had merely resulted in creating confusion to some
extent, the complete answer lies in the Regulations.
Page 18 of 22
21. Chapter 2 of the Regulations provides for the definition of
‘Duty’ in Regulation 10(9). From a bare perusal thereof, it is evident that a
person is said to be on ‘duty’ when he is performing the duties of the post
or is undergoing probation or training prescribed for the post. In the case
in hand, the argument raised by the counsel for the respondent runs
contrary to the plain language of Regulation 10(9) as noticed above. They
wish to state that the period during which the direct recruits were
undergoing training should not be counted for the purpose of seniority,
while the Regulation treats them on duty.
22. If we go further, Regulation 87 which is part of Chapter 10
again containing certain definitions with the title ‘Appointed to a Class of
Service’. It clearly mentions that a person shall be appointed to a class of
service when he discharges for the first time, the duties of the post or
commences probation or training prescribed therefor.
22.1 Taking this further, even Regulation 97 is also in the same line
and consistent with the aforesaid two regulations. Regulation 97 talks
about seniority. It does not talk about the date of appointment which in
fact had already been clarified in Regulations 10(9) and 87. It only
mentions that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the rank
obtained by a candidate in the list of approved candidates drawn by the
Page 19 of 22
Board or any other appointing authority. Date of commencement of
probation shall be the date on which he joins duty, irrespective of seniority.
22.2 In our opinion, from the plain language used in the aforesaid
Regulation, it is evident that seniority is to be counted from the placement
of a candidate in the merit list which is prepared at the time when
recruitment takes place. As provision has been made for two years’
probation after selection, different candidates may join on different dates
during the permitted joining time. The period of probation he had to
undergo will remain two years from the date he joins duty. The merit will
not affect completion of probation.
22.3 Proviso to the aforesaid regulation will not come in aid of the
respondents, as it talks about the seniority of Assistant Engineers
recruited from two sources i.e. both by way of internal selection and direct
recruitment in a particular calendar year in the ratio of 1:1. It is for the
reason that selection in the case in hand of direct recruits was made in
December 2000 and March 2001 whereas the internal selected
candidates were promoted in May 2002. In case, the argument raised by
learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, it will wash off the
service rendered by the direct recruits from the date of their initial
appointment. At the cost of repetition, it is added that training is a part of
service which is imparted after an incumbent joins duty. Even Regulations
Page 20 of 22
treat this as a part of duty. Merely payment of consolidated sum during
the period of training and regular scale when the probation starts will not
make any difference. That is why Regulations 97 does not say anything
to the contrary to what is clearly provided in Regulations 10(9) and 87. No
Regulation has been cited before us from which it can be inferred that the
seniority is to be counted from the date a candidate starts his probation.
23. Even issuance of B.P. No.9 dated 23.04.2002 vide which the
training was reduced from two years to three months will not have any
bearing on the case in hand. The High Court has misdirected itself in
treating that BP to be relevant for the purpose of determination of seniority
of the direct recruits in the case in hand. No doubt, it will have application
from the date on which the same has been issued. However, only for the
purpose of the period of training, any candidate recruited and sent for
training even if for a period of three months will be treated to have been
recruited on day when he joins service and sent for training. In fact, this
BP did not give a cause of action to the internal candidates to challenge
the same, even if it had reduced training period of directly recruited
candidates. It is the wisdom of the employer regarding how much period
of training is to be imparted to a candidate selected for the post. Nothing
was mentioned in the aforesaid BP regarding seniority. It was a creation
Page 21 of 22
of the self-imagination of internal candidates. It may only affect the
emoluments to which such a candidate may be entitled to.
24. Anything said either in the appointment letter or in any of the
BPs which runs contrary to the plain language of Regulation 10(9) and 87
will not stand in the way for this Court to form an opinion that the seniority
of a direct recruit is to be counted from the first date of their joining after
which they were sent for training. The period therefor is irrelevant. It may
change from time to time.
25. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are
allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside.
The opinion expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court to the
extent that the seniority will commence from the date the candidate starts
his probation is totally erroneous. Such a view is not supported by the
plain language used in the Regulations.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
……………….……………..J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
New Delhi;
March 11, 2026.
Page 22 of 22