Employment Exchange appointees’ seniority is fixed by roster rank under Rule 35(a).

The appellants were appointed as Junior Training Officers through the District Employment Exchange in 1995.

Their seniority in the initial cadre was fixed by applying the 200-point communal roster under Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

They were subsequently promoted as Assistant Training Officers, Training Officers, and Principals of Government Industrial Training Institutes.

Dissatisfied with their seniority position, they submitted a representation in 2015 seeking revision of seniority.

The representation was rejected, following which they filed W.P. No. 8451 of 2016.

The Writ Court upheld the rejection, holding that their seniority had been correctly fixed according to their roster rank under Rule 35(a).

The present writ appeal challenged that order.

1. Whether the appellants’ seniority in the initial cadre of Junior Training Officer was required to be fixed or revised otherwise than by applying the 200-point communal roster under Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules

2. Whether the Writ Court erred in upholding the rejection of the appellants’ claim for revised seniority

The Court applied Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, under which seniority was determined by reference to the applicable roster rank in the circumstances of the appointments.

For appointments made through the District Employment Exchange during the relevant period, the department followed the 200-point communal roster system, and the seniority of the Junior Training Officers was fixed accordingly.

The governing principle applied was that seniority validly fixed at the time of appointment in accordance with the prescribed roster could not subsequently be revised merely because the appointees were dissatisfied with their relative placement.

The Court found that the appellants’ seniority had been fixed in the Junior Training Officer cadre by adopting the roster rank under Rule 35(a) and the 200-point communal roster system applicable to their appointments.

The appellants were aware of their roster position and consequent seniority from the time of their appointment; the later publication of the seniority list merely reflected that position.

Since the original fixation complied with the applicable service rule, the appellants had no legal basis for seeking a revised seniority position in 2015.

The Writ Court had therefore correctly concluded that there was no infirmity in the departmental determination.

The writ appeal was dismissed, the order dated 19 April 2023 in W.P. No. 8451 of 2016 was upheld, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

No order as to costs was made.