Seniority panels must follow applicable service rules, not an unsupported inter-division rotation.

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

Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.230 dated 1 October 1999, he was regularised with effect from 29 May 1997 and joined duty on 2 February 2000

A promotion panel dated 10 November 2021 placed him at Sl. No. 113, left the date of regularisation blank, and ranked above him employees regularised in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The respondent explained that Dharapuram Division was formed by merging sub-divisions from Pollachi and Erode Divisions and that an alternating placement mechanism had been used to distribute seniority between them.

The petitioner sought a direction to place him appropriately in the panel by reference to his regularisation date.

The Court also noted that the panel was subject to W.P. No. 22556 of 2017, in which the respondent had been directed to revise the seniority list under Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to appropriate placement in the seniority panel having regard to his regularisation with effect from 29 May 1997

Whether the panel dated 10 November 2021 required consequential revision in light of the order in W.P. No. 22556 of 2017

The Court referred to Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, under which the seniority list was to be revised by reckoning the employees’ dates of appointment as Road Gangmazdoors across all five sub-divisions of Dharapuram Division, as directed in W.P. No. 22556 of 2017.

It also applied the general service-law principle that the date of regularisation is relevant to determining seniority, subject to the applicable service rules.

The Court found that an inter-divisional placement arrangement unsupported by a statutory rule or other legal basis could not justify the impugned placement.

The petitioner’s regularisation with effect from 29 May 1997 was undisputed, yet employees regularised later were placed above him and his regularisation date was omitted from the panel.

The respondent’s explanation of an alternating arrangement between the former divisions did not identify a statutory rule or other legal basis for that method, making the placement appear arbitrary.

Further, because the panel was subject to the outcome of W.P. No. 22556 of 2017, it had to be modified consistently with that order, which required revision under Rule 35(a).

The petitioner’s placement was therefore to be determined in the revised list, subject to the applicable service rules and any further proceedings.

Employees regularised after him 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.