Seniority of Transferred Employee In Region Counted From Transfer Date, Not From Date Of Joining: Madras High Court

Background Facts

Mr. C. Subramani (Petitioner) was originally appointed as “Junior Assistant” on 18.09.1987 and his services were regularized with effect from 24.09.1988. Thereafter, he was posted as “Assistant” on 01.02.1994 and further promoted as “Senior Assistant” on 01.08.2013. The petitioner completed a Degree in Law in 1992 and a Diploma in Labour Law in 1993, as required for the promotion. The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Superintendent (Legal) or Senior Superintendent (Legal) but the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents. Despite possessing the necessary qualifications, he was overlooked for promotion.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petitions.

The petitioner contended that he possessed the necessary educational qualifications for the post. He contended that others without the requisite qualifications were promoted to these positions, contrary to the Common Service Rules. Petitioner challenged a seniority list that omitted his name and sought to quash it. He claimed that his exclusion from the list was unjustified and requested that it be revised to include his name based on his representation.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents (Transport Department Government of Tamil Nadu; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.) that the petitioner was transferred to a different region with a condition that he was placed as the junior-most in the administrative capacity upon joining that region and this transfer justified his exclusion from the list for certain vacancies. They asserted that this condition affected petitioners' seniority and eligibility for promotion. The respondents further argued that petitioners' lack of eligibility until a certain date rendered his claims for promotion baseless.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that petitioners' transfer to a different region with the condition of being placed as junior-most in the administrative capacity upon joining that region had an impact on his seniority. The court found that transfer condition justified petitioners' exclusion from certain vacancies in the list. The court upheld the validity of the seniority list and rejected petitioners' claim for inclusion based on his representation. The court held that when an employee changes regions and accepts the lowest administrative rank, their seniority in the transferred region is counted from the transfer date, not the original date of entry into service.

The court held that petitioners' contentions regarding improper promotion of others was not substantiated and held that even if appointments or promotions made by the respondents were illegal, the same did not conferred any right on the petitioner to make a similar claim.

The court looked at the eligibility of the petitioner for the position of “Superintendent (Legal)” based on the Common Service Rules as he hadn't worked as “Superintendent (Admin and Accounts)” neither held positions relevant for consideration. Despite claiming since 1992, the petitioner lacked eligibility or rights for consideration or promotion as per the rules. Even if irregularities existed in appointments to the post, the petitioner lacked the standing to object or make claims. Thus, the court deemed the petitioner's claim baseless and rejected it.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Case No. : W.P.Nos.290 of 2019 and 24441 of 2018

Case Name : C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 199

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. L. Chandrakumar for E. Mohamed Abbas

Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.E.Ranganayaki, Additional Government Pleader; Mr. R. Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General VIII assisted by Mr.R.Babu, Standing Counsel for TNSTC