S.Kasiraj, v. Tamil Nadu Generation And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR 1.S.Kasiraj 2.S.Selvakumar 3.A.Antony Mariadoss 4.D.Vijayakumar 5.S.Rajasekar 6.T.Ganesan 7.S.Kalairasan 8.S.Rajasekaran 9.S.Krishnamurthy 10.S.Murgan ... Petitioners Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director No.144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited No.144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Capper Hills Cuddalore-4.

4.A.Balasubramanian 5.S.Syed Kathar 6.S.Syed Musthaq 7.J.Murugaiyan 8.V.Sekar 9.P.Anbazhagan 10.J.Dharmasamy 11.K.Nalladurai 12.R.Venkatraman 13.K.Manikandan 14.K.Selvam 15.K.Ravichandran 16.C.Sekar 17.D.Prabhakaran 18.J.Kumaran 19.R.Ravi 20.V.Jayablan .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the concerned records from the 3rd respondent, quash the Memo bearing No.386/Adm.2/A.1/F.C.I Seniority/2011 dated 25.05.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent and the seniority list of Commercial Inspector enclosed therein as illegal, arbitrary

and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to finalize the seniority list of Commercial Inspector based on the proceedings of the 3rd respondent bearing Memo.No.223/Adm.2/AI/F.Seniority/2010 dated 3.4.2010 and effect promotion to the post of Foreman based on the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.P.Venkatesh Prasad for Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

For R6 to R8, : Ms.Saha Fathima, R11, R12, R15, for Mr.V.Stalin R18 to R20.

For R5, R10 : Mr.N.Suresh & R17 For R4, R9, R13, : Notice served - No appearance R14 & R16

O R D E R

Heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.A.P.Venkatesh Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, Ms.Saha Fathima, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 8, 11, 12, 15 & 18 to 20 and Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5, 10 & 17.

2.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the final seniority list issued by the 3rd respondent in Memo No.386/Adm.2/A.1/F.C.I

Seniority/2011, dated 25.05.2011 in the cadre of Commercial Inspector, while seeking a consequential direction to finalize the seniority list in terms of the provisional seniority list communicated through Memo.No.223/Adm.2/A.1/F Seniority/2010, dated 03.04.2010. 3.

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, as well as from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is evident that the only ground on which the impugned proceedings dated 25.05.2011 has been challenged is that the respondents Nos.4 to 20 herein were placed at the appropriate place in the provisional seniority list dated 03.04.2010, but in the final seniority list their places are altered to the disadvantage of the petitioners without the respondent Nos.4 to 20 exercising their option to choose the line of promotion either with the Commercial Inspector or Line Inspector in terms of B.P.(Ch).No.256, (Administrative Branch) dated 12.12.2005 before the cut off date ie., 30.06.2007. If the respondent Nos.4 to 20 have exercised their option in terms of B.P.(Ch).No.256 on or before 30.06.2007, the ground on which the writ petition has been filed does not stand.

4.

The respondents filed counter affidavit categorically stating that the private respondents herein have exercised their option much prior to 30.06.2007 and accordingly, they were placed in the seniority list. It is further stated that the seniority of the respondent Nos.4 to 20 was fixed in the provisional seniority list taking into consideration their appointment to the post of Commercial Assistant instead of taking into consideration their date of joining in the post of Helper. That is how respondent Nos.4 to 20 herein were placed in the provisional seniority list. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also placed before this Court copies of the options exercised by the respondent Nos.4 to 20, which disclose that they have exercised their option to the post of Commercial Inspector well before 30.06.2007. 5.

On the other hand, though specifically contended in the affidavit that the respondent Nos.4 to 20 have not exercised their option before 30.06.2007, no material is placed before this Court in support of such contention. The respondent Corporation is also able to satisfy this Court that the respondent Nos.4 to 20 herein have exercised their option much before 30.06.2007.

6.

In the circumstances, the sole ground on which the writ petition has been filed does not stand and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 06.08.2025 dpa Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order To 1.The Chairman cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited No.144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited No.144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Capper Hills Cuddalore-4.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

dpa 06.08.2025