Directly Recruited Engineers Entitled To Seniority From Date Of Initial Appointment Including Training Period: Supreme Court

“Training prescribed for a post forms part of service and cannot be excluded while determining seniority of directly recruited employees.” On 11 March 2026, Supreme Court of India has held that the seniority of directly recruited employees cannot be deferred merely because they were undergoing training prior to commencement of probation. The Court clarified that where service rules treat training as part of duty, the training period must necessarily be counted while determining seniority.

A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal allowed the civil appeals and set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which had directed redrawing of the seniority list by treating all Assistant Engineers as appointed in the same year.

The dispute arose concerning the inter-se seniority between directly recruited Assistant Engineers and internally selected candidates in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

Direct recruitment was conducted in phases, wherein about 200 Assistant Engineers were recruited in December 2000 and another 100 in March 2001. On the other hand, internally selected candidates were promoted to the cadre only in May 2002.

Certain internal candidates challenged administrative orders reducing the training period of direct recruits and subsequently questioned the seniority list issued by the Board. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the seniority of direct recruits from the date of their appointment.

However, the Division Bench reversed the decision and directed that the seniority list be redrawn by treating all candidates as appointed in 2002, thereby placing internally selected candidates at par with the direct recruits.

The Supreme Court examined the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations dealing with appointment, duty and seniority. The Court noted that the regulations specifically provide that an employee undergoing prescribed training for a post is deemed to be on duty.

The Bench observed that appointment to service occurs when a person begins performing duties or commences training or probation for the post. Since the training formed an integral component of the service structure, it could not be excluded while determining seniority.

The Court further noted that the direct recruits had entered service earlier and had undergone mandatory training, whereas the internal candidates entered the cadre only in 2002. Therefore, pushing forward the seniority of direct recruits would be contrary to the applicable service regulations.

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that directly recruited Assistant Engineers are entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment, including the period spent undergoing mandatory training. The Court held that the High Court had misinterpreted the service regulations and erred in directing that all candidates be treated as appointed in the same year.

Consequently, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was set aside and the earlier seniority position of the direct recruits was restored.