LexM. THANIGIVELU AND ORS. versus TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.