Judgment : 1. The petitioners herein seek for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Pro.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/13659/2001, dated 16.08.2004, quash the same and to issue a consequential direction to respondents-1 and 2 to fix the seniority of Respondents-5 to 16 with reference to the date of concurrence of their appointments as Junior Assistants by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission i.e. 25.10.1990. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by highlighting the facts at the first instance, would submit that the first petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Junior Assistant on 17.08.1990 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant on 18.07.1996. Similarly, the second petitioner, who was initially appointed as Typist on 1.2.1988, subsequently got promotion to the post of Assistant on 1.9.1995. The third petitioner, who was initially appointed as Rural Welfare Officer Grade II on 08.06.1988, was promoted as Assistant on 01.09.1995. Thereafter, petitioners-2 and 3 were further promoted to the post of Extension officers. While so, consequent to formulation of single service Rules in Rural Welfare Department, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in and by G.O.Ms.No.349, P. & A.R. Department [Per.B], dated 12.04.1984, issued amendments relating to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial services, reconstituting the Ministerial Unit of the Panchayat Development Department. The amendments, among others, provided that, in respect of Junior Assistants/Rural Welfare Officers Grade II/Cashiers in each Unit of Panchayat Development Department, 10% of the vacancies are to be filled up from among the part-time/full-time clerks serving in Village Panchayats and another 10% from among the Record Clerks serving in Panchayat Unions, provided they had put in 5 years of service in the said post and possessed the Minimum General Educational Qualification, and the remaining 80% shall be reserved to be filled up by open competition in the cycle indicated below:- 1. Record Clerk 2. Open Competition 3. Open Competition 4. Open Competition 5. Open Competition 6. Part-time clerk 7. Open competition 8. Open Competition 9. Open Competition 10. Open Competition The District Collector of erstwhile composite North Arcot District, in his proceedings in Lr.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/7329/85 dated 09.05.1985, submitted proposals for filling up of an approximate 15 vacancies of Junior Assistants in the composite North Arcot District from Part-Time Clerks of Village Panchayats and sought for the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public service Commission. Open Competition 10. Open Competition The District Collector of erstwhile composite North Arcot District, in his proceedings in Lr.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/7329/85 dated 09.05.1985, submitted proposals for filling up of an approximate 15 vacancies of Junior Assistants in the composite North Arcot District from Part-Time Clerks of Village Panchayats and sought for the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public service Commission. When there was no order passed, the District Collector, North Arcot District, Vellore, in and by his proceedings in Pro.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/7329/85 dated 17.05.1985, promoted 13 Part-Time Clerks working in several Village Panchayats as Junior Assistants. By another order dated 10.05.1986, the same District Collector, North Arcot District, Vellore, appointed six record clerks serving in certain panchayat Unions as Junior Assistants and thereafter, the third respondent/District Collector, Vellore, sought for ratification of the Government for such appointments. However, the Government by their letter No.40007/E3/85-3, Rural Development Department dated 09.05.1986, declined to ratify such appointments and informed the Director of Rural Development to issue instructions to the District Collector, North Arcot, Vellore, to revert those Junior Assistants who were promoted from the posts of Part-Time Clerks and Record Clerks and to take action against the officers responsible for the irregular appointments. By a subsequent letter vide No.53919 A/EIII/86-7, Rural Development Department dated 3.12.1986, the Government declined to reconsider the order dated 09.05.1986 and directed that further action to be taken in pursuance of the order dated 09.05.1986 in cases where there is no stay order of this Court. 3. After pointing out the above, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that, when the matter stood as above, G.O.Ms.No.963, Rural Development [E7] Department dated 28.11.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.964, Rural Development [E7] Department dated 28.11.1990 were issued containing guidelines for filling up of the vacancies of the Junior Assistants/Rural Welfare Officers Grade II/Cashiers from among (i) Record clerks in Panchayat Unions and (ii) Part-Time/Full-Time Clerks in village panchayats respectively. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission also had given its concurrence in its letter No.267/M3/85 dated 25.10.1990 for appointments made before 1.4.1990 under the later part of Regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission also had given its concurrence in its letter No.267/M3/85 dated 25.10.1990 for appointments made before 1.4.1990 under the later part of Regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954. In view of that, the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, by letter dated 20.10.1993, issued consequential directions to the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, to arrange for regularisation of services of such of those candidates who were promoted as Junior Assistants upto 01.04.1990, except those cases pending before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. While so, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 19.04.1995 in M.A.No.889/95 in T.A.No.519/1993 [W.P.No.10471/1986], issued a direction to the third respondent to continue the applicants as Junior Assistants if their promotion was within the quota of 10% as per G.O.Ms.No.349 P & A.R. Department [Per.B] dated 12.04.1984 subject to approval by the Tamil Nady Public Service Commission, if not already obtained. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai by his proceedings in Pro.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/5372/95 dated 4.12.1995 regularised the services of 10 candidates in the cadre of Junior Assistant and the grievance of the petitioners is that this order was passed in violation of the orders of the Tribunal without verifying whether their promotion is within the 10% quota. The third respondent miserably failed to ascertain or get clarification on the same from the District Collector, North Arcot District, Vellore. Further, their services ought to have been regularised with effect from the date of concurrence of their appointment by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission i.e. on 25.10.1990. Unfortunately, the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, regularised the irregular appointments made in 1985 by the District Collector, Vellore, without following any norms and in violation of the orders of the Tribunal and that too from the date of their appointment as Junior Assistant. The petitioners were not served with the above orders and hence they had no opportunity to challenge the same. By such regularization of their services with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointments as Junior Assistant, their seniority as on 01.01.1992 in the post of Junior Assistants was revised and they were placed in the seniority list above the names of the petitioners and the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, issued orders in Pro.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/13659/2001 dated 16.08.2004 to this effect. There was no prior notice to the petitioners in this regard. There was no prior notice to the petitioners in this regard. As an adverse consequence, in the impugned seniority list, without even giving any notice to the petitioners, the seniority of the petitioners and the respondents concerned were drastically altered, with the result, the petitioners were pushed down below the respondents. Even though Rule 35(f) of the General Rules for TN State and Subordinate Services is very specific that an application for revision of seniority in a service, class, category or grade has to be made within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service, class, category or grade, unfortunately, the authorities committed a grave error in entertaining the belated application and unsettling the settled seniority in the guise of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts. In fact, only on 12.11.1997, a representation was made by R9/K.Balakrishnan and another representation was made by R15/S.Arumugam on 22.05.1997. After readily accepting those representations, the respondents concerned were given the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect to the post they were appointed as Junior Assistant and this has drastically affected the services rendered by the petitioners and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for interference with the impugned order passed by the respondents. 4. By referring to the counter affidavit filed by respondents-1 to 4, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the first petitioner - Formerly Assistant, Panchayat Union, West Arni, now Extension Officer (Administration) Panchayat Union, Vandavasi, was initially appointed to the post of Junior Assistant and joined duty on the forenoon of 17.08.1990. The second petitioner was initially appointed as Typist and joined duty on the forenoon of 01.02.1988 and now, he is working as Extension Officer (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Panchayat Union, Cheyyar and the third petitioner, who was initially appointed as Junior Assistant and joined duty on the forenoon of 08.06.1988, is now working as Extension Officer (Small savings) Panchayat Union, Thellar. According to him, the petitioners themselves have admitted that the respondents 5 to 16 (12 persons) are already working in Rural Development Unit during the year 1985 & 1986. To stress upon such claim, learned Additional Government Pleader refereed to the service details inclusive of joining date of petitioners and respondents-5 to 16 and those details, in tabular form, are mentioned below: Sl. To stress upon such claim, learned Additional Government Pleader refereed to the service details inclusive of joining date of petitioners and respondents-5 to 16 and those details, in tabular form, are mentioned below: Sl. No. Name & Designation Mode of Appointment Date of joining Date of Service regularisation 1 2 3 4 5 1 S.Prabhu, Extension Officer (Admin) Panchayat Union, Vandavasi Compassionate Appointment 17.08.90 AN 17.8.90 2 B.Karthikeyan, Extension Officer (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Panchayat Union, Cheyyar TNPSC 01.02.1988 01.02.1988 (Date of Joining in Tiruvannamalai District on District Transfer) 3 V.Ravichandiran, Extension Officer, Panchayat Union, Thellar Compassionate Appointment 08.06.1988 08.06.1988 4 C.Nageswaran, Assistant, Panchayat Union, Thandrampet Transfer of service (R.C.Promotion) 18.05.1985 18.05.1985 (Retired) 5 N.Rajendiran, Junior Assistant, Panchayat Union, Kalasapakkam Transfer of Service (PTC Promotion) 18.5.1985 18.05.1985 6 B.Gunasekaran, Assistant, Panchayat Union, Arni Transfer of Service (R.C.Promotion) 18.05.1985 18.05.1985 7 G.Kuppan, Rural Welfare Officer (Gr-I), Panchayat Union, Thandrampet Transfer of Service (PTC Promotion) 18.05.1985 18.05.1985 8 K.Balakrishnan, Rural Welfare Officer (Gr-I), Panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai. Transfer of Service (PTC Promotion) 18.05.1985 18.05.1985 9 R.Padmanabamurthy, Assistant, Panchayat Union, Chengam Transfer of service (PTC Promotion) 18.05.1985 18.05.1985 10 R.Krishnan, Assistant, Panchayat Union, Vandavasi Transfer of service (PTC Promotion) 20.05.1985 20.05.1985 (Retired) 11 M.Paranjothi, Rural Welfare Officer (Gr-I) Panchayat Union, Vandavasi. Transfer of service (PTC Promotion) 20.05.1985 20.05.1985 12 C.Margapandu, Assistant, Panchayat Union, West Arni Transfer of Service (R.C.Promotion) 22.05.1985 22.05.1985 13 R.A.Palani, Rural Welfare Officer (Gr-I), Panchayat Union, Chetpet Transfer of Service (PTC Promotion) 22.05.1985 22.05.1985 (Retired) 14 S.Arumugam, Assistant Panchayat Union, Pudupalayam Transfer of Service (PTC Promotion) 31.10.1985 31.10.1985 15 V.Gopi, Assistant, Panchayat Union, Pernamallur Transfer of Service (PTC Promotion) 14.05.1986 14.05.1986 According to him, the above details would show that the respondents were appointed as Junior Assistants much prior to the petitioners' appointment. By referring to G.O. Ms. No.349, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B) Department, dated 12.04.1984 and also G.O.M.s No.585, Rural Development and Local Administrative Department, dated 12.04.1984 as well as other relevant proceedings, he submitted that the claim of the petitioners is totally baseless and that, since the revision of seniority relating to the respondents concerned was done in a fair manner based on rules and relevant G.Os., there is no scope for interference particularly when the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and they were given notice of the same. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in threshold. 5. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in threshold. 5. This Court, after taking note of all relevant aspects in particular the date of the appointment of both the petitioners and the respondents-5 to 16, is unable to find any good reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings for more than one reason. As per G.O.Ms.349, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B) Department dated 12.04.1984, the Government had issued amendments to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services reconstituting the Ministerial Unit of the Panchayat Development. It is provided therein that, in the case of Junior Assistants, Rural Welfare Officer (GR.II) and Cashiers in each unit of the Panchayat Development, 10% of the vacancies are to be filled up from among the Record Clerks of the Panchayat Union and another 10% shall be reserved to be filled up from among the part-time clerks in the Village Panchayats, who have put in a regular service for a period of not less than five years in the post held by him and possessed the minimum General Educational Qualification as prescribed in the schedule to the General Rules to the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services irrespective of age. As per G.O. Ms. No.585, Rural Development and Local Administrative Department dated 12.04.1984, the Government issued orders for provisions for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, Rural Welfare Officer (Gr.II) and Cashier by direct recruitment from among the Record Clerks of the Panchayat Union and Part-Time Clerks of the Village Panchayats. Further, Pursuant to the above mentioned Government Orders, the Government issued orders to the effect that provisions shall be made for appointments to the relevant posts by direct recruitment from among record clerks of the Panchayat Unions and the Part-time Clerks of the Village Panchayats. Only consequent thereto, respondents-5 to 16 were temporarily promoted as Junior Assistant by proceedings dated 17.5.1985, 25.10.1985, 10.05.1986 and 17.05.1985. Although, a proposal was sent for ratification, the Government issued a direction to the Director of Rural Development in letter dated 09.05.1986, not to appoint part time clerks in village panchayat and record clerk in panchayat unions against the quota reserved from them even on temporary basis. Based on the said recommendation, the Government had issued instructions to the Collector of North Arcot District to revert all these Junior Assistants, who were temporarily promoted. Based on the said recommendation, the Government had issued instructions to the Collector of North Arcot District to revert all these Junior Assistants, who were temporarily promoted. Challenging the same, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.10471 of 1986 was filed before this Court by the respondents herein and this Court had also granted stay. Thereafter, as per G.O.Ms.No.963 and 964 Rural Development (E1) Department, on 28.11.1990, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission gave its concurrence under the later part of 16(b) of the Regulations to fill up the vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant, Rural Welfare Officer (Gr.II) and Cashiers in the Panchayat Development Unit under the T.N. Ministerial Service as on 01.04.1990 from the category of Record Clerks of the Panchayat Unions and Part Time Clerk of the Village Panchayats. This was accepted by the Government along with the recommendation of the Commission. Consequently, the vacancies reserved in the post of Junior Assistant, Rural Welfare Officer (Gr.II) and Cashiers in Panchayat Development Unit with reference to the orders issued in G.O. No.349, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B.) dated 12.04.1984 upto 01.04.1990 were directed to be filled up against the number of vacancies available by the appointing authorities from among the Record Clerks of the Panchayat Unions and Part Time Clerk of the Village Panchayats, subject to the conditions that they possess the minimum general educational qualification and five years of regular service in the post held by them in the light of the orders and the list of eligible persons drawn up in accordance with their seniority. Thus, this is a clear case where the 3rd Respondent/District Collector had issued the provisional seniority list on 26.03.1996 only after concurrence was given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to the order of regularization regarding respondents 5 to 16. In fact, when the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai published a seniority list dated 01.01.1992, the respondents 5 to 16 were not included on the ground that their services were not regularised in the cadre of Junior Assistant. Thereafter, respondents-5 to 16 submitted their representation to the District Collector who, rightly, regularised the services with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Assistant from 1.1.1992, in the cadre of Junior Assistant. Thereafter, naturally, they were to be placed in the seniority list above the petitioners. Thereafter, respondents-5 to 16 submitted their representation to the District Collector who, rightly, regularised the services with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Assistant from 1.1.1992, in the cadre of Junior Assistant. Thereafter, naturally, they were to be placed in the seniority list above the petitioners. Therefore, the alteration was rightly made by refixing the seniority of R-5 to R-16. Also, in the meanwhile, the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, had issued a clarification in his proceedings dated 28.10.1993 that once appointments are made duly adhering to the conditions prescribed, there is absolutely no bar for regulating the services as per seniority in respect of the vacancies upto 01.04.1990. Consequently, in the spirit of the Government Orders and the sequence of events as detailed above, by correctly considering the request of respondents-5 to 16, their names were included in the seniority list of Junior Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer (Gr.II) published on 26.03.1996 assigning appropriate seniority number. In other words, only after observing all the formalities with reference to the Government Orders, the seniority of the respondents was revised in the concerned cadres. Therefore, the petitioners cannot fault with the impugned proceedings for revising or refixing the seniority of respondents-5 to 16 6. In respect of the claim that the petitioners were not issued with any prior notice to timely respond to the adverse fixation/revision of seniority, it must be pointed out that the records available before this Court show that the alteration of the seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant as on 01.01.1992, issued in Procs. No.R.C.PA3/13659/01, dated 16.08.2004, of the District Collector's Office at Tirunvannamalai, was forwarded to the petitioners through their offices, therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they were not furnished with a copy and hence, they could not challenge the process in time is not acceptable. Further, the provisional seniority list dated 26.03.1996, also clearly shows that the objections were called for from the petitioners/aggrieved officials. Therefore, this Court does not find substance in the claim of the petitioners. At any rate, when the respondents made their representations dated 12.11.1997, 22.05.1997, etc. requesting to continue their service in the post of Junior Assistant, the District Collector concerned by taking into account the earlier appointment of the respondents, rightly prepared the provisional list on 26.03.1996. Therefore, this Court does not find substance in the claim of the petitioners. At any rate, when the respondents made their representations dated 12.11.1997, 22.05.1997, etc. requesting to continue their service in the post of Junior Assistant, the District Collector concerned by taking into account the earlier appointment of the respondents, rightly prepared the provisional list on 26.03.1996. Subsequently, when objections were also called for, after considering the same, both the petitioners and the respondents were placed in their respective proper places. Therefore, no grievance can be made either against the said seniority list dated 26.03.1996 or the impugned proceedings, dated 16.08.2004, rightly revising/re-fixing the seniority of the respondents-5 to 16. When it is not the case of the petitioners that they were appointed prior to respondents-5 to 16 as it is an admitted fact that respondents-5 to 16 were appointed as Junior Assistant five years prior to the appointment of the petitioner, absolutely there is nothing wrong in placing the petitioners below the respondents/seniors. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is unable to find any error or infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, this Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.Ps. stand closed.