JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with proceedings Ref. Memo No.603/Adm II/A.1/F.CL/2001 dated 01.08.2001 issued by the third respondent and to quash the same insofar as the respondents 4 to 22 are concerned and place the petitioners above them for permanent absorption in the service of the first respondent Board.) 1. Heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 as well as Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20 & 21. 2. In the year 1998, the need arose for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) to discontinue engagement of contract labourers and regularise the existing contract labourers. Accordingly, the contract labourers engaged in the four Hydro Generation Projects were identified on 05.01.1998, in which, the Kadamparai Hydro Generation Project composed of 186 contract labourers. On 14.05.1999, the TNEB issued Board Proceedings No.22 for absorption of contract labourers working in all the four Hydro Generation Projects as helpers based on the list of persons identified on 05.01.1998. The seniority was to be made based on the date of joining of contract labourers. 3. The grievance of the petitioners herein are that though their names have been shown as seniors to the private respondents 4 to 22 herein, they had not been absorbed, whereas these private respondents 4 to 22, who are juniors to them in the seniority list dated 05.01.1998 have been absorbed. Hence, they have sought for quashing the provisional selection list of the respondents 4 to 22 herein and consequently, place the petitioners above them on permanent absorption. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the procedure envisaged, the contract labourers are to be absorbed based on their seniority from the list dated 05.01.1998. Since the respondents 4 to 22 are apparently juniors to the petitioners herein in the said list, the provisional selection list is contrary to the Full Board Proceedings viz., PB. No.22, which has not followed the seniority enumerated therein. 5. Since the respondents 4 to 22 are apparently juniors to the petitioners herein in the said list, the provisional selection list is contrary to the Full Board Proceedings viz., PB. No.22, which has not followed the seniority enumerated therein. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the records pertaining to engagement of contract labourers was not available in any of the Hydro Generation Projects and therefore, in order to identify the persons for absorption, the days which each of the contract work man had worked between 01.05.1999 to 31.12.2000 was taken into consideration and accordingly, the absorption was made. As per the provisional selection list, the respondents 4 to 22 have put in more number of working days than the petitioners herein and hence, they were absorbed prior to the petitioners. 6. Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary and proper parties. According to the learned counsel, any changes or interference to the provisional selection list, would affect the seniority of the entire helpers, who have been provisionally selected and their non impleadment would be fatal to the Writ Petition. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels. 8. The Full Board of the TNEB had issued order in PB. No.22 dated 14.05.1999, absorbing all the contract labourers, who were identified in the four Hydro Generation Projects, including Kadamparai Hydro Power Generation Station as on 05.01.1998, subject to the conditions that the seniority will be fixed based on their respective date of joining along with other conditions. As on 05.01.1998, 186 persons were identified as contract labourers in Kadamparai Power Generation Project. From 01.05.1999 onwards, engagement of contract labourers was discontinued in all the Hydro Generation Projects and supernumerary posts were also created for adoption of all the contract labourers, who have worked for 480 days between 06.01.1996 and 05.01.1998. As on 05.01.1998, 186 persons were identified as contract labourers in Kadamparai Power Generation Project. From 01.05.1999 onwards, engagement of contract labourers was discontinued in all the Hydro Generation Projects and supernumerary posts were also created for adoption of all the contract labourers, who have worked for 480 days between 06.01.1996 and 05.01.1998. Though the Board Proceedings No.22 had issued orders for absorption of the contract labourers as on 05.01.1998, by fixing the seniority on the basis of the date of joining of the contract labourers, it is the submission of the respondents 1 to 3 herein that the records pertaining to engagement of contract labourers was not available in any of the Hydro Generation Projects and therefore, the absorption was temporarily stalled. Subsequently, in the year 2001, a decision was taken initially to absorb 120 contract labourers from Kadamparai Hydro Generation Project and in view of the non availability of the records, the working days of each of the contract workmen between 01.05.1999 and 31.12.2000 was taken into consideration and a seniority list was accordingly prepared. Based on this seniority list, a provisional selection list dated 01.08.2001 was prepared. The records available with the respondents 1 to 3 were called for and perused. Therein, it is seen that the list dated 05.01.1998 has been prepared not on the basis of the date of joining of each of the contract labourers but the entire contract labourers, who were engaged in all the four Hydro Generation Projects were identified and a list was prepared accordingly. None of the records pertaining to this list dated 05.01.1998 refers to it as seniority list. On the other hand, the Board Proceedings in PB No.22 dated 14.05.1999 also refers to the list dated 05.01.1998 as a list of contract labourers, who were identified as on that date. The further condition in the Board Proceedings is that the seniority is to be fixed on the date of joining. No other records have been produced before this Court either by the petitioners or the respondents to substantiate that the list dated 05.01.1998 was the seniority list of the contract labourers as on 05.01.1998. 9. While that being so, the question that requires to be determined in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioners herein are seniors to the respondents 4 to 22. 9. While that being so, the question that requires to be determined in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioners herein are seniors to the respondents 4 to 22. The statement of the Board that the records pertaining to the engagement of the contract labourers prior to 05.01.1998 was not available and that none of the contract labourers could not produce any sufficient materials to substantiate their entry into the Board on contract basis, has not been negated by the petitioners. It is also seen that the list dated 05.01.1998 was not adopted as a seniority list not only in Kadamparai Hydro Generation Projects but also in three other Hydro Generation Projects of the Board. When the Board has come with the specific submission that the records were not available and therefore, the days which each of the contract workman had worked between 01.05.1999 and 31.12.2000 was taken into account, a pragmatic approach alone requires to be taken. When the petitioners claim to have been engaged as contract labourers for a number of years prior to 1990 but are unable to substantiate their engagement and in the absence of any records with the Board also, I do not find any infirmity when a decision was taken to prepare the seniority list, reckoned on the number of working days of the contract labourers, between 01.05.1999 and 31.12.2000. When the list dated 05.01.1998 has been referred to as only a list of contract labourers identified as on that date and in the absence of any other material to substantiate that the said list was a seniority list, this Court is able to draw an inference that the contract labourers arrayed in the list dated 05.01.1998 was not as per their respective seniority, but only a group of workers, who have been collectively identified to have been engaged on contract basis, as on 05.01.1998. Hence the ground raised by the petitioners that the absorption of the respondents 4 to 22, overlooking the petitioners' seniority respectively, is unfounded. 10. The respondents 4 to 22 submitted that the inclusion of the petitioners herein in the seniority list will affect not only these private respondents, but also the other contract labourers, who were provisionally selected as on 01.08.2001. Such a submission could be acceptable. 10. The respondents 4 to 22 submitted that the inclusion of the petitioners herein in the seniority list will affect not only these private respondents, but also the other contract labourers, who were provisionally selected as on 01.08.2001. Such a submission could be acceptable. The respondents 4 to 22 are persons, who are shown as juniors in the list dated 05.01.1998 and if if when the names of the petitioners are assumed to be included in the impugned list, the seniority of all the provisionally selected workman will definitely have a bearing. As such, the consideration of the petitioners' prayers, without giving an opportunity to all the affected workers, will also not be proper. 11. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have also been absorbed with effect from 05.08.2005 onwards. After a lapse of more than 17 years from the date of the provisional list, it will not be justifiable on the part of this Court to order for any other relief and reopen the fixation of seniority. 12. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any satisfactory reasons to interfere with the Provisional Selection List dated 01.08.2001. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.