Seniority Of Direct Recruits Counts From Initial Appointment, Not Probation Completion : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court had ruled that the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) must be counted from the date of their initial appointment, including the training period, and not from the date they commenced probation after completing training.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's division bench judgment, which had calculated the seniority of the employee from the date they joined the service after completion of the probation.

“…the seniority of a direct recruit is to be counted from the first date of their joining after which they were sent for training. The period therefor is irrelevant. It may change from time to time.”, the Court observed.

The controversy stemmed from recruitment to Assistant Engineer posts in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board around 2000–2002. Direct recruits were selected in December 2000 and March 2001, while employees already working in the Board were later promoted through internal selection in 2002.

At the time of appointment, direct recruits were designated as Assistant Engineer (Trainees) and required to undergo a training period before being placed on probation in the regular pay scale. Meanwhile, internal candidates challenged the recruitment conditions introduced by the Board, which led to delays in their own selection process.

Subsequently, disputes arose regarding how seniority should be determined between the two groups. Internal selectees argued that direct recruits could be considered part of the cadre only after completing training and commencing probation. Based on this argument, they sought to place all candidates in the same seniority block from 2002.

A Single Judge of the Madras High Court rejected this contention and upheld the seniority of direct recruits from their initial appointment. However, the Division Bench reversed that decision and directed the Board to redraw the seniority list, prompting appeals before the Supreme Court.

Disagreeing with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in excluding the date of initial appointment while determining seniority. The Court further noted that calculating seniority from the date of joining after completion of probation would lead to uncertainty, as different candidates may complete probation and join on different dates.

“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.”, the court observed, pointing out that the seniority shall be reckoned from the date of initial appointment, when the candidate was sent for training.

Referring to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Service Regulations), 1967, the Court stated that the date of commencement of probation does not determine seniority, making it clear that the High Court's view that seniority begins only from the start of probation was incorrect.

“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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the seniority of the appellants was directed to be recomputed from the date of their initial appointment.

Cause Title: M. THANIGIVELU AND ORS. VERSUS TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. (with connected appeals)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar,Sr.Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthy,Adv. Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Mr. Atharva Kotwal,Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Ms. Akansha Bhola, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR Mr. M. Mahamani, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthy, Adv. Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv. Ms. Srishti Ghoshal, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Tonmoy Talukdar, Adv. Ms. Payal Rani, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Mr. Shoeb Alam,Sr.Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Ankita Makan, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Ms. Akansha Bhola, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj,Sr.Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR Mr. M. Mahamani, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthy, Adv. Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv. Ms. Srishti Ghoshal, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Tonmoy Talukdar, Adv. Ms. Payal Rani, Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR