Holding

Seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers is to be counted from the date of their initial appointment, i.e., the first day they join for training, not from the commencement of probation.

Summary

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) recruited directly versus those selected internally by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Direct recruits were appointed between December 2000 and March 2001, while internal candidates were promoted in May 2002. The dispute centered on whether seniority for direct recruits should be counted from the date of their initial appointment (including the training period) or only from the commencement of probation. The Supreme Court examined the Board's Service Regulations, particularly Regulations 10(9), 87 and 97, and held that the plain language treats training as part of duty, so seniority begins on the first day of joining for training. The Court rejected the High Court's view that seniority starts from the probation date and set aside its judgment. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the seniority of direct recruits was fixed from their initial appointment date.

Issues considered

The appropriate date from which seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers should be calculated under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967
Whether the reduction of training period by Board Proceeding No. 9 (23.04.2002) affects the seniority of direct recruits
Interpretation of Regulations 10(9), 87 and 97 regarding duty, appointment and seniority

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967s. 10(9), s. 87, s. 97

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Dispute pertains to inter-se seniority of the Assistant Engineers (Electrical)-directly recruited and internally selected candidates, and what is to be taken as the date of the appointment of the direct recruits. Headnotes† Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Regn 10(9), 87, 97 – Seniority – Inter-se seniority of the Assistant Engineers (Electrical)-directly recruited and internally selected candidates – Date of the appointment of direct recruits – Seniority of direct recruit to be counted from the first date of their

Subjects

Inter-se seniorityAssistant Engineers (Electrical)Direct recruitsInternally selected candidatesDate of the appointment of the direct recruitsSenioritySelection of direct recruits internal ProbationTraining

Judgment

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 432 : 2026 INSC 229

M. Thanigivelu and Ors.
v.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 862 of 2026)
11 March 2026
[Rajesh Bindal* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Dispute pertains to inter-se seniority of the Assistant Engineers
(Electrical)-directly recruited and internally selected candidates,
and what is to be taken as the date of the appointment of the
direct recruits.

Headnotes†
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967 – Regn
10(9), 87, 97 – Seniority – Inter-se seniority of the Assistant
Engineers (Electrical)-directly recruited and internally selected
candidates – Date of the appointment of direct recruits –
Seniority of direct recruit to be counted from the first date of
their joining after which they were sent for training or from
the date the candidate starts his probation:
Held: From the plain language used in the 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 – As provision has been made for two years’ probation after
selection, different candidates may join on different dates during
the permitted joining time – Period of probation he had to undergo
will remain two years from the date he joins duty – Merit will not
affect completion of probation – Training is a part of service which
is imparted after an incumbent joins duty – Even Regulations treat
this as a part of duty – Merely payment of consolidated sum during
the period of training and regular scale when the probation starts
will not make any difference – That is why Regn 97 does not say
anything to the contrary to what is clearly provided in Regns 10(9)
and 87 – No Regulation cited from which it can be inferred that
the seniority is to be counted from the date a candidate starts his
probation – Anything said either in the appointment letter or in any
of the BPs which runs contrary to the plain language of Regn 10(9)

* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 433

M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

and 87 will not stand in the way for this Court to form an opinion
that the seniority of a direct recruit is to be counted from the first
date of their joining after which they were sent for training – Period
thus, is irrelevant, it may change from time to time – Impugned
judgment passed by the High Court set aside – Opinion expressed
by the Division Bench that the seniority will commence from the
date the candidate starts his probation totally erroneous and not
supported by the plain language used in Regulations. [Paras 19-25]

Case Law Cited
R.S. Ajara and Others v The State of Gujarat, 1997 INSC 213 :
[1997] 2 SCR 597 : (1997) 3 SCC 641; The State of H.P. v J. L.
Sharma, 1997 INSC 736 : [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 174 : (1998) 1
SCC 727; Govt. of A.P. v. P. Bhaskar, 2008 INSC 267 : [2008] 3
SCR 589 : (2008) 11 SCC 687 – referred to.

List of Acts
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967.

List of Keywords
Inter-se seniority; Assistant Engineers (Electrical); Direct recruits;
Internally selected candidates; Date of the appointment of the direct
recruits; Seniority; Selection of direct recruits internal Probation;
Training.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 862 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 1444 of 2018
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 863-864, 865, and 866-872 of 2026

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., Ms. Madhavi Divan, Guru Krishna
Kumar, Nikhil Goel, Sr.Advs., Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Naveen
Kumar Murthy, Abhisek Mohanty, Ansh Rajauria, Atharva Kotwal,
Sabarish Subramanian, Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja,
434 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. This judgment will dispose of a bunch of appeals involving identical
issues. Vide common judgment1, passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court2, seven writ appeals3 were disposed of. The Division
Bench of the High Court had set aside the order passed by the
Single Bench whereby writ petitions filed by the private respondents
herein were dismissed. The dispute pertains to inter-se seniority of
the Assistant Engineers (Electrical)4, directly recruited and internally
selected candidates. The appellants are the direct recruits, and the
private respondents are the internally selected candidates.
3. Briefly, the facts relevant to the issue under consideration, as pointed
out by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing,
are as follows.

1 Dated 06.09.2024
2 High Court of Judicature at Madras
3 W.A. Nos.2093, 2094, 2095, 2685, 2686 of 2010 and 1443 & 1444 of 2018
4 Hereinafter ‘AE’
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 435

M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

3.1 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board5 contemplated selection to the post
of AE on direct recruitment basis and for internal candidates.
Both have their separate quotas.
3.2 Vide Board Proceeding6 No.29 dated 27.11.2000 issued by the
Board, written examination was introduced for the selection
to the post of AE on direct recruitment basis. Vide another
BP No.39 issued on 04.12.2000, for carrying out selection
for the post of AE, even for internal candidates, a written
examination was proposed. Prior to that, on 03.11.2000, the
Board had called for information regarding eligible candidates
for appearance in examination for the internal selection
quota. It was for the purpose of considering their suitability
for promotion as AEs.
3.3 The prospective candidates, seeking selection through internal
selection process, challenged the communication dated
03.11.2000 by filing Writ Petition No.20512 of 2000 before the
High Court. The High Court granted interim stay on 06.12.2000.
3.4 BP No.35 was issued by the Board on 13.12.2000 providing
that all appointed as AE (Training) shall undergo training, for a
period of two years including induction training of three months
with consolidated emoluments of ₹7,500/- per month. After
carrying out the process of selection in December 2000 on
direct recruitment basis, 200 AEs were appointed.
3.5 Subsequent thereto, after due process of selection, 100 more
AEs were appointed on direct recruitment basis on 28.03.2001.
3.6 BP No.59 was issued by the Board on 13.11.2001 to dispense
with the written examination for internal candidates from the
date of issuance of BP.
3.7 BP No.9 issued by the Board on 23.04.2002 pertains to direct
recruits providing that on completion of 3 months of intensive
training AE (Trainee) shall be designated as AEs and their
probation shall commence from the date of joining in the Board
and will be for two years.

5 For short, ‘the Board’
6 For short, ‘BP’
436 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3.8 Thereafter, the selection process for internal candidates was
carried out and the select list was issued on 06.05.2002.
Consequently, appointments were made in that quota.
3.9 Writ Petition No.19596 of 2002 was filed by the internal
selectees challenging BP No.9 vide which the training period
of the candidates selected on direct recruitment basis was
reduced from two years to three months. Subsequent thereto,
number of other writ petitions were filed claiming the same relief.
3.10 On 31.10.2007, inter-se seniority of AEs selected in the year
2000 was issued. It was revised on 01.04.2008. The same
was also impugned before the High Court in W.P. 20879/2008.
3.11 On 03.07.2008, inter-se seniority of AEs selected and appointed
in the year 2001 was issued. The same was also the subject
matter of the challenge in W.P. No.20875/2008.
3.12 In the year 2009, AEs appointed on direct recruitment basis in
the year 2000 and 2001 were promoted to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer on the basis of their seniority.
4. The writ petitions7 filed by the internal selectees were dismissed by
the Single Bench of the High Court holding that the directly recruited
AEs in the year 2000 and 2001 were entitled to seniority from the date
of their initial appointment. The aforesaid order was challenged by
filing intra-court appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
5. The Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Single Bench
and directed re-drawing of the seniority list treating that all the
candidates were appointed in the year 2002.
6. It is this judgment of the High Court decided a bunch of appeals which
is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court by the Board as
well as the direct recruits. The respondents are the internal selectees.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
7. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the Board,
submitted that, in the case in hand, on direct recruitment basis 200
candidates were selected in December 2000, whereas 100 were

7 WP No. 19596 of 2002 & connected matters
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 437

M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

selected and appointed on 28.03.2001. As against that, the internal
candidates were selected and promoted on 06.05.2002. For the
purpose of determining the issue as to whether the seniority of
the direct recruits is to be reckoned from the date of their initial
appointment, including the period of training or from the date when
they were put on probation, after completion of training, he has
referred to Regulation Nos. 10(9), 87 and 97 of the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board (Service Regulations),19678.
7.1 The argument raised while referring to Regulation 10(9), is that
a person is said to be on duty when he is performing the duties
of a post or is undergoing the probation or training prescribed
for the post.
7.2 While referring to Regulation 87(1), it was submitted that a
person is said to be appointed to the service at the time he
discharges for the first time, the duties on a post or commences
probation or training prescribed therefor.
7.3 Referring to Regulation 97 dealing with the seniority, it was
submitted that the seniority is to be determined with reference
to the rank obtained by a candidate in the list of approved
candidates by the appointing authority. It was submitted that the
commencement of the probation is from the date a candidate
joins duty, irrespective of his seniority. This has nothing to do
with determination of inter-se seniority of the recruits from two
different sources.
7.4 Explaining the proviso to the aforesaid Regulation, it was
submitted that the same shall be applicable for determination of
inter-se seniority of the direct recruits and the internal candidates
in case both were recruited in the same calendar year. The
case in hand does not fall in that category as the direct recruits
were selected in the years 2000 and 2001, whereas the internal
candidates were promoted in May 2002.
7.5 It was further argued that the Division Bench of the High Court
has recorded erroneous findings to the effect that the seniority
of the direct recruits is to be taken from the date when their
probation started. The training period is to be excluded.

8 Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Regulations’.
438 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

7.6 In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the
judgments of this Court in R.S. Ajara and Others v The State
of Gujarat9 and the State of H.P. v J. L. Sharma10.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS / DIRECT RECRUITS
8. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants,
submitted that the problem arose on account of different B.Ps issued
by the Board. He referred to B.P. No.35 dated 13.12.2000 whereby
B.P. No.29 dated 27.11.2000 was amended. It clearly laid down that
an incumbent shall be placed on probation for two years on completion
of training. However, the same was never implemented. He further
referred to B.P. No.9 dated 23.04.2002 in which it has been noticed
that representations had been made by AE (Trainee) stating that
two years’ training period on consolidated pay may be reduced as
they are independently attending to the work attached to the post
of AEs, three months after intensive training. Vide aforesaid circular,
the training period of newly recruited AEs (Trainee) during December
2000 to March 2001 was reduced from two years to three months.
9. Promotions from the quota of internal candidates was made in
May 2002. On 03.06.2002, W.P. No.19596 of 2002 was filed by the
internal candidates who were appointed to the post of AE (Electrical)
in May 2002, praying for the quashing of B.P. No.9 dated 23.04.2002
with a further direction that the service of the directly recruited AEs
(Trainees) be regularised only on completion of two years from
the date of appointment. It was argued that the aforesaid BP was
administrative in nature and could not override the Regulations,
which are quite explicit.
10. The Sigle Bench dismissed the Writ Petitions. However, the Division
Bench, without pointing out any error in the judgment of the Single
Judge, has just reversed the same. The import of the Regulations
applicable to the post has not even been touched. As a result of the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the date of appointment of
the candidates who were appointed later will be ante-dated, whereas
the direct recruits who were appointed earlier shall be deemed
to be appointed later. The interpretation, as given by the Division
Bench, runs contrary to the Regulations. If there was any delay in

9 1997 INSC 213 : [1997] 2 SCR 597 : (1997) 3 SCC 641
10 1997 INSC 736 : [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 174 : (1998) 1 SCC 727
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 439

M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

selection of the internal candidates, they were to be blamed as they
had challenged the condition of exam provided for their selection.
The examination for internal candidates was prescribed vide letter
dated 03.11.2000 and this came to be reiterated vide B.P. No.31
dated 04.12.2000. The aforesaid BP was challenged by the internal
candidates by filing W.P. No.20512 of 2000 in which interim stay
was granted by the High Court on 06.12.2000. Subsequently, the
conditions for holding exam for internal candidates vide B.P. No.31
dated 04.11.2000 was withdrawn vide B.P. No.59 dated 13.11.2001.
11. It was further argued that it is the recruitment to the post of AE
(Electrical) and not AE (Trainee). Training is the part of the service
as is evident from the Regulations and after training, the probation
starts. It cannot be argued that for the purpose of counting seniority
of the directly recruited candidates, the period will be counted only
from the date the probation started. In support of the argument,
reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court in Govt. of A.P. v.
P. Bhaskar11.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INTERNALLY SELECTED
CANDIDATES/PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
12. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned senior counsel appearing
for the internal selected candidates submitted that the challenge
made by them before the High Court was to the reduction of period
of training for the direct recruits, as the same was affecting their
seniority. He referred to B.P. No.29 dated 27.11.2000 and B.P. No.35
dated 13.12.2000 providing for training period of 2 years inclusive
of three month induction training for all appointees as Assistant
Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) on a consolidated pay of ₹7,500/- p.m.
The recruitment was subsequent to the issuance of the above B.Ps.
12.1 He further referred to appointment letter dated 15.12.2000
issued to directly recruited candidate in which a specific clause
was put in that after completion of training, the candidate will
be placed on probation for a period of two years on a regular
pay scale. The same was to happen after completion of training
for a period of two years on a consolidated pay. The aforesaid
conditions were never challenged by any of the direct recruits.

11 2008 INSC 267 : [2008] 3 SCR 589 : (2008) 11 SCC 687
440 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12.2 He had referred to another appointment letter dated 27.12.2000
containing similar clause. This also provided that the newly
recruited candidate will have to undergo training for a period
of two years.
12.3 The argument was that the recruitment of direct recruits was
made after the issuance of the aforesaid B.Ps. Subsequent
thereto, B.P. No.9 dated 23.04.2002 was issued which
reduced the period of training from two years to three months.
The benefit of aforesaid BP was sought to be given to the
candidates who had already been recruited. This was the
reason for the internal candidates to approach the Court.
This action of the Board was affecting the seniority of internal
selected candidates. The High Court had rightly opined that
the aforesaid BP should be considered as prospective and not
retrospective. Even referring to Regulations 89 and 97, the
argument is that the seniority is to be counted only from the
date probation starts. This is the opinion of the High Court as
well. There is no error in the impugned judgment of the High
Court. The appeals deserve to be dismissed.
13. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the private
respondents while adopting the arguments addressed by Mr. Nikhil
Nayyar, Senior Advocate, submitted that the whole idea of issuing
BP No.9 was to bypass the provisions of Regulation 97 which clearly
provide the manner in which seniority of the direct recruits and the
internal candidates is to be determined. In fact, the private respondents
were eligible in the year 1997 for being promoted. However, the
process of selection was delayed. As a result, there being no fault
on their part, their position in the seniority is being compromised. He
submitted that the delay in the process of promotion of the private
respondents was caused by the direct recruits.
13.1 He further argued that appointment of internally selected
candidates was stalled due to introduction of an exam for
them. To substantiate the same, it was contended that service
regulations did not provide for any such exam and the same
was introduced by Board Proceeding. Even the Single Judge
in Para 50 of the order, held that Board’s issuance of BP,
introducing written examinations for internal selectees in
violation of service regulations, was the “root cause” for all
the problems regarding fixation of inter-se seniority.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 441

M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

13.2 The learned senior counsel further added that an employee
enters the cadre only when the period of probation starts and
not on the initial date of appointment. This is what Regulation
97 also provides. The internally selected candidates were
rightly aggrieved against BP No.9 vide which the period of
training of direct recruits was reduced as it was substantially
affecting rights of the internally selected candidates, who had
much more experience of working in the Board as compared
to the direct recruits who had just entered the service. The
reason for reducing the period of training is evident from the
Note dated 12.02.2002, which also clearly depicts that the
training period was not to be counted for qualifying service
for the purpose of terminal benefits.

DISCUSSION
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred record.
15. The dispute in the present case pertains to inter-se seniority of AEs
(Electrical) coming from two different sources, namely, direct recruits
and internally selected candidates. The process is governed by Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967.
16. To appreciate the contentions being raised by the learned counsel
for the parties in our view certain Board Proceedings (BP) issued
by the Board from time to time need to be summed up hereunder:

Brief narration of various BPs issued by Tamil Nadu
Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNPDCL),
Formerly Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB)

S.No. Date Particulars
1. 27.11.2000 Board Proceeding (BP) No. 29 was issued by TNEB.
BP No. 29 provided for introduction of written examination
for selection of AEs through direct recruitment. It further
provided for consolidated emoluments of ₹7,500/- p.m.
during the two-year probation period (as against 6
months at Rs. 2,500/- currently) and stated that after
successful completion of probation they will be absorbed
as regular AEs in the regular scale of pay.
442 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

2. 03.11.2000 TNEB, by letter No.116790/269/G55/G551/2000-3,
informed Chief Engineers and Superintending Engineers
of TNEB that a written examination is proposed to be
held on 11.11.2000 for internal selection of AEs. They
were directed to send all eligible and qualified employees
to attend the examination.
3. 04.12.2000 BP No. 31.
Provided that written examination will be conducted for
promotion to post of AE (Electrical) even for existing
eligible employees who are qualified.
4. 13.12.2000 BP No. 35 was issued by TNEB, amending para 4 of
BP No. 29, as follows:
“All appointees as Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee)
shall be on training initially for a period of two years
including induction training of three months with a
consolidated pay of Rs.7,500/- p.m. On completion of
the training, he/she will be placed on probation for two
years in the time scale of pay which is applicable to
the regulation Assistant Engineer/Electrical in the Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board.”
5. 12.04.2001 BP No. 23 was issued by TNEB, to amend Annexure
I of Service Regulations, as follows:
“Internal Selection and Direct Recruitment shall be
made in the ratio of 1:1. Internal selection shall be
made based on the results of a written test and also
based on a minimum length of service rendered after
acquiring B.E. Degree or equivalent qualification as may
be decided by the Board from time to time.”
6. 23.04.2002 BP No. 9 was issued by TNEB. The BP pertained to
direct recruits, and provided as under:
“(i) On completion of three months intensive training the
I Assistant Engineers/ Trainee shall be designated
as Assistant Engineers with the duties and
responsibilities of the regular Assistant Engineers.
(ii) The Assistant Engineers (Trainee) recruited during
December 2000 and March 2001 shall be given the
time scale of pay on par with the regular Assistant
Engineers after completion of 3 months intensive
training.
(iii) Their probation shall commence from the date of
joining in the Board and will be for a period of two
years within a continuous period of three years.”
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 443

M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

17. The relevant provisions or the Regulations dealing with the issue
are extracted below:
“10. Unless there be something repugnant in the subject
or context the terms defined in this chapter are used in
these regulations in the sense here explained :
(9) DUTY: A person is said to be on dutya) when he
is performing the duties of a post or is undergoing
the probation, instructions or training prescribed for
a post in a class of service;
xxxx
87. (1) Appointed to a Class of Service:
A person is said to be “appointed to a class of service”
when in accordance with these regulations or in accordance
with the Regulations applicable at the time, as the case
may be, he discharges for the first time the duties of
a post borne on the cadre of such class of service or
commences probation, instruction or training prescribed
for members thereof.
Explanation: The appointment of person holding a post
borne on the cadre of one category or class of service
or a post in another category or class of service or to
discharge the current duties thereof does not amount to
appointment.
(2) Approved Candidate means, a candidate whose name
appears in an authoritative list of candidates approved for
appointment to any class of service or post borne on the
cadre of a class of service.
xxxx
97. SENIORITY:
(a) The seniority of a person in a class of service, category
or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank
as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by
him in the list of approved candidates drawn. up by the
Board or other appointing authority, as the case may be.
The date of commencement of his probation shall be the
date on which he joins duty irrespective of his Seniority.
444 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Provided that the seniority of Assistant Engineers
(Electrical)/ (Civil)/ Mechanical) recruited both by Internal
Selection and direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1 in a
particular calendar year shall be fixed in the following
cyclic order:
1. Internal Selection
2. Direct Recruitment”

Opinion Expressed By The High Court
18. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the Board has
the power to prescribe training as a qualification for appointment.
Consequently, B.P. No. 35, which mandated a two-year training
period for direct recruits, was deemed valid and consistent with the
Regulations. Further, regarding B.P. No. 9, issued on 23.04.2002,
reducing the training period to three months, the Division Bench
opined that this proceeding could not be applied retrospectively
to start probation of the direct recruits from initial joining dates in
2000 or 2001. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid view
expressed by the High Court as it only talks about period of training
of a direct recruit. The Division Bench ruled that direct recruits could
only be considered to have started their probation on and after
23.04.2002 (the date B.P. No. 9 was issued). Before this date, they
were designated as “trainees” and, by the express terms of the BPs,
were prohibited from exercising the powers and duties of regular AEs.
Since both the direct recruits and the internal selectees were now
considered recruited in the same calendar year (2002), the Division
Bench directed the Board to redraw the seniority list.

CONCLUSION
19. As far as the date of appointment of the candidate from two different
sources of recruitment is concerned, the direct recruits were selected
and appointed in December 2000 to March 2001 whereas the
internally selected candidates were appointed by way of promotion
in May 2002.
20. The issue to be considered in the present appeals is as to what is
to be taken as the date of the appointment of the direct recruits. In
our opinion, instead of going into the language used in various BPs
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 445

M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

issued by the Board, which had merely resulted in creating confusion
to some extent, the complete answer lies in the Regulations.
21. Chapter 2 of the Regulations provides for the definition of ‘Duty’ in
Regulation 10(9). 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. In the case in hand, the argument raised by the counsel for the
respondent runs contrary to the plain language of Regulation 10(9)
as noticed above. 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.
22. If we go further, Regulation 87 which is part of Chapter 10 again
containing certain definitions with the title ‘Appointed to a Class of
Service’. 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.
22.1. Taking this further, even Regulation 97 is also in the same line
and consistent with the aforesaid two regulations. 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. It only mentions that the seniority
shall be determined on the basis of the rank obtained by a
candidate in the list of approved candidates drawn by the Board
or any other appointing authority. Date of commencement of
probation shall be the date on which he joins duty, irrespective
of seniority.
22.2. In our opinion, 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. 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.
22.3. Proviso to the aforesaid regulation will not come in aid of
the respondents, as it talks about the seniority of Assistant
446 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Engineers recruited from two sources i.e. both by way of
internal selection and direct recruitment in a particular calendar
year in the ratio of 1:1. It is for the reason that selection in the
case in hand of direct recruits was made in December 2000
and March 2001 whereas the internal selected candidates
were promoted in May 2002. In case, the argument raised by
learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, it will wash
off the service rendered by the direct recruits from the date of
their initial appointment. At the cost of repetition, it is added
that training is a part of service which is imparted after an
incumbent joins duty. Even Regulations treat this as a part of
duty. Merely payment of consolidated sum during the period
of training and regular scale when the probation starts will
not make any difference. That is why Regulations 97 does
not say anything to the contrary to what is clearly provided
in Regulations 10(9) and 87. 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.
23. Even issuance of B.P. No.9 dated 23.04.2002 vide which the training
was reduced from two years to three months will not have any
bearing on the case in hand. The High Court has misdirected itself
in treating that BP to be relevant for the purpose of determination
of seniority of the direct recruits in the case in hand. No doubt, it
will have application from the date on which the same has been
issued. However, only for the purpose of the period of training, any
candidate recruited and sent for training even if for a period of three
months will be treated to have been recruited on day when he joins
service and sent for training. In fact, this BP did not give a cause
of action to the internal candidates to challenge the same, even if
it had reduced training period of directly recruited candidates. It is
the wisdom of the employer regarding how much period of training
is to be imparted to a candidate selected for the post. Nothing was
mentioned in the aforesaid BP regarding seniority. It was a creation
of the self-imagination of internal candidates. It may only affect the
emoluments to which such a candidate may be entitled to.
24. Anything said either in the appointment letter or in any of the BPs
which runs contrary to the plain language of Regulation 10(9) and
87 will not stand in the way for this Court to form an opinion that
the seniority of a direct recruit is to be counted from the first date
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 447

M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

of their joining after which they were sent for training. The period
therefor is irrelevant. It may change from time to time.
25. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are allowed.
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.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain