Belated parity claims cannot reopen settled seniority absent an original seniority error.

The petitioners, women police constables appointed in 1981 and later promoted as Women Sub-Inspectors, sought promotion as Inspectors from the dates their alleged juniors were promoted.

They relied on orders granting deemed promotion to G. Bharathamatha, A. Muniyammal and others after a seniority revision affecting personnel in the Ramanathapuram Range was set aside.

The respondents contended that, unlike in Ramanathapuram, seniority in the petitioners’ ranges had consistently been fixed by marks obtained at the Police Recruit School (PRS), and that the petitioners had approached the Court only after retirement and substantial delay.

The Court found that the petitioners’ seniority lists had not been disturbed and that the earlier relief arose from the distinct circumstances of the Ramanathapuram Range.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to parity with officers granted deemed promotion following the setting aside of a seniority revision in the Ramanathapuram Range.

2. Whether the petitioners’ claims for seniority revision and consequential promotion could be entertained despite their long delay and, for most petitioners, filing after retirement.

Rule 35(f) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, corresponding to Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, was cited by the respondents as requiring applications for seniority revision to be made within three years of appointment.

The Court relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, for the principle that laches, delay and acquiescence may prevent fence-sitters from claiming relief granted to similarly situated persons who litigated earlier.

It also relied on C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, for the rule that a stale claim cannot be revived by a later representation or by an order disposing of that representation.

The Court considered G.O.Ms. No.2655 dated 1 November 1974 and G.O.Ms. No.1706 dated 3 July 1986 concerning seniority based on PRS examination marks, and G.O.Ms. No.1476 dated 3 October 1996.

The Court distinguished the petitioners’ cases from those of the Ramanathapuram personnel.

The earlier litigation concerned a seniority list in that Range that had been maintained on a different basis and was revised after a long interval; the resulting dispute led to the setting aside of that revision and consequential relief for affected officers.

By contrast, the petitioners’ seniority in Madurai, Dindigul and Madurai City had consistently been based on PRS marks, and their lists had not been altered.

The Court therefore held that the prior promotions did not establish a basis for granting the petitioners equivalent relief.

It further found that the petitioners had not satisfactorily explained their lengthy delay in seeking to reopen seniority fixed decades earlier, and applied the principles against stale claims and fence-sitter relief.

It declined to set aside the petitioners’ seniority or grant them notional or actual promotion as Inspectors, including promotion from the dates their alleged juniors were promoted.

No costs were awarded.