Summary
In a seniority dispute between Assistant Engineers recruited directly in 2000-2001 and internal candidates promoted in 2002, the Court held under the TNEB Service Regulations that training is part of duty and of appointment to the service. Seniority runs from the direct recruits' initial joining, not from the start of probation. The High Court's direction to treat all as appointed in 2002 and redraw the seniority list was set aside.
Issues
- Whether the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers (Electrical) runs from their initial appointment, including the training period, or only from the start of probation.
- Whether Board Proceeding No. 9 of 23.04.2002, which reduced the direct recruits' training from two years to three months, had any bearing on inter-se seniority.
- Whether the proviso to Regulation 97, which fixes a cyclic order for recruits from both sources in the same calendar year, applied.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 10(9), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967A person undergoing the training prescribed for a post is 'on duty'; excluding the direct recruits' training period from seniority would contradict this definition. (¶¶ 17, 21, 24)
- Regulation 87(1), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967A person is appointed to a class of service when he first discharges the duties of the post or commences the prescribed probation or training, so the direct recruits were appointed on joining and being sent for training. (¶¶ 17, 22, 24)
- Regulation 97 and proviso, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967Seniority follows rank in the approved list drawn up at recruitment, and probation starts from joining irrespective of seniority. The same-calendar-year cyclic proviso did not apply because the direct recruits were selected in 2000-2001 and the internal candidates promoted in 2002. (¶¶ 17, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3)
Held
- The question of the direct recruits' date of appointment is answered by the Regulations, not the Board Proceedings, which had only caused confusion; anything in an appointment letter or Board Proceeding contrary to Regulations 10(9) and 87 cannot prevail. (¶¶ 20, 24)
- Training is part of service imparted after an incumbent joins duty. Under Regulations 10(9) and 87, a direct recruit's seniority counts from the first date of joining, after which he was sent for training, and not from the start of probation. Payment of a consolidated sum during training does not alter this. (¶¶ 21, 22, 22.3, 24)
- Under Regulation 97, seniority is fixed by placement in the merit list at recruitment; the date of joining governs only the running of the probation period. No Regulation provides that seniority runs from commencement of probation. (¶¶ 22.1, 22.2, 22.3)
- The proviso to Regulation 97 governs only recruits from both sources in the same calendar year, and did not apply where direct recruits were selected in December 2000 and March 2001 and internal candidates promoted in May 2002. (¶ 22.3)
- Board Proceeding No. 9, which reduced the training period, says nothing about seniority and gave internal candidates no cause of action; the length of training is for the employer, and the High Court misdirected itself in treating that proceeding as relevant to seniority. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Division Bench judgment set aside, and the view that seniority commences from the start of probation held erroneous.