The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the training period undergone by direct recruits must be counted for the purpose of determining inter-se seniority, as it constitutes being “on duty” under the relevant service regulations.
A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which had erroneously held that seniority should only commence from the date a candidate starts their probation, effectively excluding the training period.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute pertained to the inter-se seniority of Assistant Engineers (AE) in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). The conflict involved two groups: direct recruits appointed between December 2000 and March 2001, and internally selected candidates (promoted from within the Board) appointed in May 2002.
In December 2000, the Board issued Board Proceeding (BP) No. 35, which mandated a two-year training period for direct recruits on a consolidated pay of ₹7,500 per month, followed by a two-year probation period. However, on April 23, 2002, the Board issued BP No. 9, reducing this intensive training period from two years to three months for those recruited in 2000 and 2001.
Internal candidates challenged this reduction, arguing it was an attempt to ante-date the seniority of direct recruits. While a Single Bench of the High Court dismissed their petitions, the Division Bench reversed the decision, directing a re-drawing of the seniority list by treating all candidates as having been appointed in the year 2002.
Arguments of the Parties
The Board and the Direct Recruits argued that under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Service Regulations), 1967, the term “Duty” explicitly includes training. They contended that seniority is determined by the rank in the merit list and that the date of appointment is the date a person commences training.
Conversely, the internal candidates argued that the direct recruits were only “trainees” on a consolidated pay and not regular members of the service until their probation began. They claimed BP No. 9 was an administrative maneuver to bypass Regulation 97, which governs seniority, and that the reduction of training should only apply prospectively.
Court’s Analysis and Interpretation of Regulations
The Supreme Court held that the “complete answer” to the dispute lies within the plain language of the Service Regulations, rather than the various Board Proceedings which had created confusion.
The Court highlighted Regulation 10(9), which defines ‘Duty’:
“A person is said to be on duty (a) 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.”
Furthermore, Regulation 87(1) states that a person is “appointed to a class of service” when they discharge duties for the first time or commence “probation, instruction or training prescribed therefor.”
Addressing Regulation 97, which deals with seniority, the Court observed:
“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… The merit will not affect completion of probation.”
The Court rejected the internal candidates’ reliance on a proviso in Regulation 97 regarding the 1:1 ratio for recruitment in a “particular calendar year.” Since the direct recruits joined in 2000-2001 and internal candidates in 2002, they did not fall within the same calendar year for the purpose of that proviso.
Key Observations on Training and BP No. 9
The Bench criticized the High Court’s focus on BP No. 9, stating it was irrelevant to the determination of seniority.
“It is the wisdom of the employer regarding how much period of training is to be imparted to a candidate… Nothing was mentioned in the aforesaid BP regarding seniority. It was a creation of the self-imagination of internal candidates.”
The Court further clarified:
“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 of their joining after which they were sent for training. The period therefor is irrelevant.”
The Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment. It concluded that the High Court’s view—that seniority commences only when probation starts—was “totally erroneous” and unsupported by the Service Regulations.
The Court reinstated the seniority of the direct recruits as initially determined, confirming that service rendered during the training period counts as active duty for seniority purposes.
Case Details
- Case Title: M. Thanigivelu and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 862 of 2026 (with connected matters)
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
- Date of Judgment: March 11, 2026
