M. THANIGIVELU v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
Determination of Seniority - Inclusion of Training Period as "Duty" for Reckoning Service Length and Inter-se Seniority Between Direct Recruits and Internal Promotees.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 229
Decision Date: 11-03-2026
List of Laws
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Service Regulations), 1967; Service Law - Inter-se Seniority; Administrative Law - Retrospective Application of Board Proceedings; Constitutional Law - Article 14 and Article 16
- Facts: The dispute involves the inter-se seniority of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) recruited from two sources: direct recruitment and internal selection. Direct recruits were selected and appointed between December 2000 and March 2001. During this period, Board Proceedings (BP) required a two-year training period before commencing probation. Internal candidates, whose selection was delayed due to litigation regarding the introduction of a written examination, were promoted in May 2002. In April 2002, BP No. 9 was issued, reducing the training period for direct recruits from two years to three months. Internal selectees challenged this reduction, arguing it was intended to retrospectively accelerate the seniority of direct recruits. They contended that seniority should only be counted from the date probation starts, not the date of joining as a trainee.
- Procedural Posture: The Single Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the internal selectees, holding that direct recruits were entitled to seniority from their initial appointment. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed this decision, ruling that seniority for direct recruits should only be reckoned from April 23, 2002 (the date of BP No. 9), effectively treating both groups as recruited in the same calendar year and directing a redrawing of the seniority list. The Board and the direct recruits appealed this reversal to the Supreme Court.
- Issue: Whether the seniority of a direct recruit should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment (including the training period) or from the date of commencement of probation after the completion of training.
- Holding: The Supreme Court held that seniority must be counted from the first date of joining duty, which includes the prescribed training period, and not from the date of commencement of probation.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on the plain language of the TNEB Service Regulations, 1967. Regulation 10(9) defines "Duty" to include the period spent undergoing prescribed probation or training. Regulation 87(1) states a person is "appointed" when they first discharge duties or commence prescribed training. Regulation 97 stipulates that seniority is determined by the rank in the approved list and that probation commences when the candidate joins duty. The Court reasoned that since the direct recruits joined in 2000 and 2001, and internal candidates were promoted only in 2002, they were not recruited in the same calendar year; thus, the 1:1 cyclic rotation rule did not apply. The Court clarified that training is an integral part of service performed after joining duty, and the method of payment (consolidated sum vs. regular scale) does not alter the status of being on duty for seniority purposes.
🔒 For Members Only