Later-regularised employees cannot rank above an earlier-regularised employee without authority under applicable service rules.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Nominal Muster Roll employee in the Highways Department on 1 September 1985.

Under G.O.Ms.No.230 dated 1 October 1999, he was regularised with effect from 29 May 1997 and joined duty on 1 October 1999

After the Dharapuram Division was formed in 2010 by merging sub-divisions from Pollachi and Erode Divisions, a seniority panel issued on 10 November 2021 placed the petitioner at Sl. No. 112, left his regularisation date blank, and placed above him employees regularised in 1998, 1999 and 2000

The respondents said the placement reflected an arrangement intended to distribute seniority equitably between the former divisions, and that the panel was subject to W.P. No. 22556 of 2017

The petitioner sought a direction to place him according to his regularisation date; he had also submitted a representation on 19 November 2021

Whether the petitioner was entitled to be placed in the seniority list consistently with his regularisation date of 29 May 1997, subject to the applicable service rules.

Whether the respondents could retain the petitioner’s placement below employees regularised later based on an inter-divisional arrangement unsupported by a statutory rule or other legal basis.

The Court stated that the date of regularisation is a relevant criterion for determining seniority, subject to the applicable service rules.

It also referred to the order in W.P. No. 22556 of 2017, which directed revision of the Road Gang Mazdoors’ seniority list by reckoning their dates of appointment across all five sub-divisions of Dharapuram Division, strictly in accordance with Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

The petitioner’s regularisation with effect from 29 May 1997 was undisputed, yet the 2021 panel left that date blank and ranked above him employees regularised in later years.

The respondents’ explanation of an equitable inter-divisional arrangement did not establish a statutory rule or other legal basis for that placement; the Court therefore considered the arrangement prima facie arbitrary.

Because the panel was subject to the outcome of W.P. No. 22556 of 2017, and that order required revision under Rule 35(a), the Court concluded that the panel required consequential modification.

The petitioner’s placement was to be determined consistently with his regularisation date and the applicable service rules.

Employees regularised after the petitioner were not to be placed above him, subject to the applicable service rules and the outcome of any further proceedings.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the order; no costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.