An employee accepting allotment to another service cannot later claim seniority from the original selection.

The Teachers Recruitment Board conducted direct recruitment of Physical Education Teachers for the Directorate of School Education, Directorate of Elementary Education, Chennai Corporation and Madurai Corporation for 2007–2010.

Although the recruitment was common, separate provisional selection lists were prepared for each establishment.

The appellant was selected for the Directorate of Elementary Education and was placed at Serial No. 6 in that list.

During counselling, she opted for and accepted appointment as a Physical Education Teacher in the Chennai Corporation, joining service on 17.02.2011.

The private respondents had been selected for the Chennai Corporation and joined on 20.12.2010.

After serving for approximately nine years, the appellant claimed that her selection seniority at Serial No. 6 ought to be recognised in the Chennai Corporation for promotional purposes.

Although she submitted representations from 2014 onwards, she instituted W.P. No. 5259 of 2020 only in 2020.

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the appellant’s claim for restoration of her selection seniority in the Chennai Corporation was barred by delay and laches, notwithstanding her representations from 2014 onwards.

Whether the appellant, having been selected for the Directorate of Elementary Education but having voluntarily accepted appointment in the Chennai Corporation, could claim seniority in the Corporation based on her Serial No. 6 position in the separate Elementary Education selection list.

Whether the appellant was entitled to seniority over the private respondents who had joined the Chennai Corporation before her.

The Court applied the principles of delay and laches governing discretionary writ jurisdiction, holding that repeated representations do not, by themselves, cure or explain prolonged delay in approaching the Court.

In seniority disputes, the Court noted that the applicable service rules require an employee to seek redress within three years.

The Court further applied the principle that seniority must be determined with reference to the relevant service, cadre, appointment and date of entry into that service, and that selection seniority in one department cannot automatically be imported into another establishment governed by different service rules.

An employee who voluntarily accepts an appointment or allotment and joins service cannot subsequently challenge that arrangement after an extended period to claim consequential seniority benefits.

The appellant’s selection at Serial No. 6 related to the Directorate of Elementary Education, whereas the Chennai Corporation had a separate selection/allotment structure and was governed by distinct service rules.

By participating in counselling, choosing the Chennai Corporation, accepting the allotment and joining there on 17.02.2011, the appellant entered Corporation service and could not rely on her earlier departmental selection position to claim seniority in that service.

Her claim was also raised after substantial delay: despite allegedly making representations from 2014, she approached the Court only in 2020, and the representations were not pursued with due diligence.

The delay was particularly prejudicial because the private respondents had already joined the Chennai Corporation on 20.12.2010 and had acquired service seniority before the appellant.

Accordingly, the writ court’s rejection on delay and laches was justified, and the claim also failed on merits.

It held that the appellant’s delayed claim was barred by delay and laches and that, on merits, she could not claim Corporation seniority based on her selection position in the Directorate of Elementary Education.

She was not entitled to seniority over the private respondents who had joined the Chennai Corporation earlier.

No order was made as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.