Seniority Under TNEB Service Regulations To Be Determined By Merit List At Recruitment, Not From Start Of Probation: Supreme Court

The Court clarified that the commencement of probation after joining service does not alter the seniority position already fixed based on the recruitment merit list.

The Court was hearing a batch of civil appeals arising from a dispute regarding inter-se seniority between directly recruited Assistant Engineers (Electrical) and those selected internally in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed: “…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. As provision has been made for two years’ probation after selection, different candidates may join on different dates during the permitted joining time. The period of probation he had to undergo will remain two years from the date he joins duty. The merit will not affect completion of probation”.

Background

The dispute concerned the determination of seniority among Assistant Engineers (Electrical) recruited through two different channels, direct recruitment and internal selection.

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had introduced written examinations for direct recruitment in 2000. Subsequently, 200 Assistant Engineers were recruited in December 2000, and another 100 in March 2001 through direct recruitment.

Internal candidates were later selected and promoted to the same post in May 2002.

The Board had also issued several Board Proceedings governing recruitment, training and probation. Under one proceeding issued in December 2000, newly recruited Assistant Engineers were required to undergo a training period of two years followed by probation. Later, another proceeding issued in April 2002 reduced the training period for direct recruits to three months and provided that probation would commence from the date of joining.

Disputes arose regarding whether the seniority of direct recruits should be counted from their initial appointment and training period or only from the date when probation began.

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the challenge raised by internally selected candidates. However, the Division Bench reversed the decision and directed that seniority be recalculated, treating all candidates as having been appointed in 2002, which led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, particularly Regulations 10(9), 87 and 97.

Regulation 10(9) defines “duty” to include not only the performance of duties of a post but also the period during which an employee undergoes training or probation. The Court noted that this provision makes it clear that a candidate undergoing training prescribed for the post is considered to be on duty.

The Bench further referred to Regulation 87, which states that a person is said to be appointed to a class of service when he discharges the duties of the post for the first time or commences probation, instruction or training prescribed for the post. This indicated that the commencement of training itself forms part of the service after appointment.

The Court observed that Regulation 97 deals specifically with the determination of seniority and provides that seniority shall be determined according to the rank obtained by a candidate in the list of approved candidates prepared by the appointing authority. The Regulation also clarifies that the commencement of probation depends on the date of joining duty and is independent of the candidate’s seniority.

The Bench held that the High Court had erred in concluding that seniority should be counted only from the date on which probation began. According to the Court, such an interpretation runs contrary to the plain language of the Regulations, which clearly treat training as part of service and link seniority to the merit position in the recruitment list.

The Court further observed that if the interpretation adopted by the High Court were accepted, it would effectively erase the service rendered by direct recruits from the date of their initial appointment. The Court emphasised that training undertaken after joining service is part of the duties of the post and cannot be excluded while determining seniority.

The Bench also clarified that the Board Proceeding issued in April 2002, reducing the training period from two years to three months, had no bearing on the issue of seniority. The proceeding merely altered the duration of training and did not contain any provision relating to the determination of seniority.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the High Court had misdirected itself by linking seniority to the commencement of probation rather than to the recruitment merit list as mandated by the Service Regulations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Court affirmed that the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers must be counted from the date they joined service following recruitment, based on their placement in the merit list.

Cause Title: M. Thanigivelu & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 229)

Appearances

Appellants: Madhavi Divan & Nikhil Goel, Senior Advocates; Advocates Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, Naveen Kumar Murthi, Abhisek Mohanty, Ansh Rajauria, Siddhartha Iyer, AOR, S. Varsha, Vishnu Priyan, Atharva Kotwal, Srishti Ghoshal, Aman Gupta, Riddhi Jain

Respondents: Amit Anand Tiwari, Senior AAG; Nikhil Nayyar & Shoeb Alam, Senior Advocates; Advocates T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR, Siddharth Vasudev, Gayatri Gulati, A. Velan, AOR, Anusha Nagarajan, Jahnavi Taneja, Akansha Bhola, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Tanvi Anand, Saushriya Havelia and Others.

Click here to read/download Judgment