Facts
The petitioners challenged orders dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Salem, rejecting their applications for revision of seniority and for grant of notional promotion as Junior Bailiffs from the dates on which M. Kalpana and C. Rajendran were promoted.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The applications had been rejected principally on the ground that they were filed beyond the three-year period contemplated under Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The respondents submitted that Kalpana and Rajendran had been appointed as Office Assistants in 2012, whereas the petitioners were appointed as Office Assistants/Watchman on 09.02.2018, 27.06.2013 and 27.04.2015, respectively.
Source reference: p.3, para.4Kalpana and Rajendran, meanwhile, were promoted as Record Clerks in 2019, Junior Bailiffs on 10.12.2021, and Reader Examiners on 08.07.2024; the petitioners became Junior Bailiffs only on 08.07.2024.
Source reference: p.3, para.4Issues
Whether the petitioners’ applications for revision of seniority were liable to be rejected as time-barred under Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
Source reference: p.2, para.2; p.3, para.3Whether the petitioners were entitled to seniority over Kalpana and Rajendran, and consequently to notional promotion as Junior Bailiffs from the dates of their promotions.
Source reference: p.1; p.3, para.4; p.4, para.6Law Applied
The Court considered Section 40(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which governs the period within which an application for revision of seniority may be made.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The applicable service-law principle is that seniority is determined in accordance with the governing service rules and the relevant date of appointment or regular service in the feeder post; a person appointed later in the feeder cadre cannot claim seniority over an earlier appointee merely because of subsequent events or an equivalent posting.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court accepted that the reason stated in the impugned orders regarding the date of promotion was incorrect, since Kalpana and Rajendran had in fact been promoted as Junior Bailiffs on 10.12.2021.
Source reference: p.3, para.3However, it held that correction of this factual error did not advance the petitioners’ case on merits.
Source reference: p.3, para.3Kalpana and Rajendran had entered service as Office Assistants in 2012, substantially earlier than the petitioners, and their subsequent promotions as Record Clerks, Junior Bailiffs and Reader Examiners were consistent with that earlier seniority position.
Source reference: p.3, para.4; p.4, para.5Since the petitioners were junior to Kalpana and Rajendran as Office Assistants, they could not claim placement above them or seek retrospective/notional promotion based on the latter’s promotions.
Source reference: p.4, para.6Holding
The Court held that the petitioners had no substantive entitlement to revised seniority or notional promotion as Junior Bailiffs from the dates on which Kalpana and Rajendran were promoted.
Although the reasoning concerning the relevant promotion date in the impugned orders was erroneous, the petitioners’ claims were independently untenable on merits because they were juniors in the feeder post.
Source reference: p.3, para.3; p.4, para.6The writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit, without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Source reference: p.4, para.7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 20161
Original Court PDF
A.SOUNDARvsThe Registrar General,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
