Violations May Exist, But Seniority Is Now Sealed: Madras High Court Dismisses Promotion Dispute as Infructuous After TANGEDCO Board Approval

“If regulations are only meant to be followed at the subjective will of authorities, those who obey the rules will be betrayed”, - In a crucial ruling touching upon fairness in service jurisprudence and the consequences of institutional delays, the Madras High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions concerning promotion and seniority disputes within the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), holding that the issues raised had become infructuous due to the subsequent approval by the Board in 2020, regularising the promotions of officers who had not cleared mandatory departmental tests on time.

Justice R.N. Manjula, while expressing concerns about regulatory violations, ultimately concluded that since the TANGEDCO Board had approved the contested promotions in its 97th meeting dated 16.12.2020, the rights had been crystallised and could not be reopened through these writ petitions:

“Now everything boils down to the approval given by the Board… Had these writ petitions been tagged along with W.P. No. 32953 of 2022, it would have been advantageous. But the claims have now become infructuous.”

“Unchecked Violations of Regulations Will Demoralise the Workforce”—Court Criticizes Arbitrary Promotions Ignoring Departmental Test Rules

The core grievance raised by the petitioners was that their juniors, who had failed to clear the Departmental Accounts Test within the probation period, were nevertheless promoted and placed above them in seniority through administrative orders issued without Board ratification at the time.

“Persons like petitioners who firmly believed the regulations and got qualified for early promotion will be betrayed if persons who did not mind to follow the regulations are rewarded.”

The Court highlighted that the rules required clearance of the departmental test within five years, failing which employees were liable to be reverted. Despite this, many officers were included in promotional panels on the condition they would pass the test later—a condition later ignored or regularised retroactively.

“If regulations are not meant to be followed or only to be followed to the subjective satisfaction of superiors, it will frustrate the very object of formulating them.”

“Relief Lost in Time”—Court Holds Delay, Laches, and Non-Challenge of Final Board Approval as Fatal

While the Court accepted that the petitioners were raising legitimate concerns, it found that the final approval granted by the Board in 2020, and the dismissal of a similar petition in 2023 (W.P. No. 32953 of 2022) on grounds of delay and laches, had settled the matter.

“The petitioners have lost the hold on the file notes of 2014… which highlighted the rule violations.”

“Though violations were noted in WP No. 32953 of 2022, the petition was dismissed for being barred by limitation under Regulation 97(d).”

Justice Manjula noted that the petitioners had approached the court earlier than others, some as far back as 2013, but their cases had not been grouped with the later petition that was decided first, leading to procedural unfairness.

“It’s Now Up to the Petitioners to Appeal”—Court Advises Further Legal Steps

The High Court suggested that the only remedy left to the petitioners, if they were still aggrieved, was to seek condonation of delay and file an appeal against the 2023 judgment, which ultimately closed the door on their claims.

“Under such circumstances, it is up to the petitioners to seek permission to file appeal… and raise all the grounds now made in these writ petitions.”

“Unchecked violations of regulations not only demoralise the workforce but will also damage the image of the institution.”

This decision underscores the fragile line between procedural discipline and institutional discretion in public sector promotions. While the High Court recognized the unfairness meted to rule-abiding officers, it ultimately allowed regularisation by authority override to stand, reinforcing the finality of administrative approvals—even when achieved at the cost of equity.

“The Court cannot override the institutional decision once regularised and made final by the competent Board… even if it means the rule-followers lose out.”

Date of Decision: 21 May 2025