Seniority Of Directly Recruited Employees To Be Counted From Date Of Initial Appointment, Not Commencement Of Probation: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, held that the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers at the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board must be calculated from the date of their initial appointment, inclusive of the training period, and not from the date probation commenced upon completion of training. Setting aside the Madras High Court Division Bench's judgment, the court found that treating probation commencement as the seniority reference point was inconsistent with the Board's Service Regulations. The dispute centred on inter-se seniority between directly recruited engineers and internally promoted candidates.
The dispute concerns the fixation of inter-se seniority between Assistant Engineers (Electrical) appointed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through two different sources—direct recruitment and internal selection. The Board had separate quotas for direct recruits and internal candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. In November 2000, the Board introduced a written examination for direct recruitment and also proposed a written examination for internal candidates seeking promotion.
Internal candidates challenged the communication introducing the examination before the High Court, where an interim stay was granted. Meanwhile, the Board issued a proceeding providing that all appointees as Assistant Engineer (Trainee) would undergo training for two years, including induction training of three months, on consolidated pay. Following the selection process, 200 Assistant Engineers were appointed through direct recruitment in December 2000 and another 100 were appointed on 28 March 2001. Subsequently, the Board dispensed with the written examination requirement for internal candidates in November 2001.
A further proceeding issued in April 2002 reduced the training period for directly recruited Assistant Engineers to three months and provided that their probation would commence from the date of joining. Internal candidates were selected and promoted in May 2002. They filed writ petitions challenging the proceeding that reduced the training period, contending that the service of direct recruits should be regularised only after completion of two years of training. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petitions, but the Division Bench of the High Court set aside that order and directed redrawing of the seniority list by treating all candidates as appointed in 2002.
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967 governing appointment and seniority. The Court observed, “From a bare perusal thereof, it is evident that a person is said to be on ‘duty’ when he is performing the duties of the post or is undergoing probation or training prescribed for the post.”
While analysing the argument that training should not be counted for determining seniority, the Court recorded, “The argument raised by the counsel for the respondent runs contrary to the plain language of Regulation 10(9) … They wish to state that the period during which the direct recruits were undergoing training should not be counted for the purpose of seniority, while the Regulation treats them on duty.”
Referring to Regulation 87 dealing with appointment to a class of service, the Court stated, “It clearly mentions that a person shall be appointed to a class of service when he discharges for the first time, the duties of the post or commences probation or training prescribed therefor.”
The Court further examined Regulation 97 relating to seniority and observed, “Regulation 97 talks about seniority. It does not talk about the date of appointment which in fact had already been clarified in Regulations 10(9) and 87.”
While interpreting the regulatory scheme, the Court recorded, “From the plain language used in the aforesaid Regulation, it is evident that seniority is to be counted from the placement of a candidate in the merit list which is prepared at the time when recruitment takes place.”
The Court addressed the contention that probation alone determines entry into the cadre and stated, “No Regulation has been cited before us from which it can be inferred that the seniority is to be counted from the date a candidate starts his probation.”
Regarding the reduction of training period by Board Proceeding dated 23 April 2002, the Court observed, “Even issuance of B.P. No.9 dated 23.04.2002… will not have any bearing on the case in hand.”
The Court also noted the nature of training in service and stated, “Training is a part of service which is imparted after an incumbent joins duty. Even Regulations treat this as a part of duty.”
The Court directed, “For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are allowed.” The Court further recorded, “The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside. The opinion expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court to the extent that the seniority will commence from the date the candidate starts his probation is totally erroneous. Such a view is not supported by the plain language used in the Regulations. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Case Title: M. Thanigivelu & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 229
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 862 of 2026 and connected appeals
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Vijay Bishnoi
