M PACHIAPPAN Vs. S MARKANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal concerns the issue with regard to the seniority of the appellants vis-a-vis respondents. The Government of Tamil Nadu published a seniority list of the appellants as also of the respondents. Earlier a provisional seniority list was published, which was circulated by an order dated 19.1.1996. Some of the employees, who were part of the said seniority list, were aggrieved by the seniority positions ascribed to them and filed their objections. The said objections were considered by the official respondent. We are informed that the said objections were rejected by an order dated 10.10.1996 and a final seniority list was published on 22.10.1996. It is, however, pointed out before us that the respondents herein, who filed original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenged only the order dated 19.1.1996 by which the provisional seniority list was circulated. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid petition before the Tribunal, the respondents/applicants filed an amendment application, in which they sought to challenge the order dated 10.10.1996 whereby the objections filed against the provisional seniority list were rejected. The said prayer for amendment of original application was, however, rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the said prayer is barred by limitation as one year period had expired from the date of order which was sought to be challenged in the amendment application. This narration of facts makes it crystal clear tht the final seniority list published on 22.10.1996 was not challenged.

(2.) The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal decided the issue raised before it and the said decision went in favour of the appellants herein directing for giving higher seniority positions to the appellants.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. By order dated 26.8.2003, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed and the seniority positions of the appellants herein were directed to be shown below the seniority position of the respondents.