The Supreme Court has clarified that the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) is to be counted from the date of their initial appointment, including the training period, and not from the date they commence probation . The decision overturns a prior Madras High Court ruling and mandates recomputation of seniority lists. Key Developments 12 March 2026 : A two‑judge bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court division‑bench judgment. The Court held that seniority begins on the first date of joining when candidates were sent for training, rendering the training period “irrelevant” for seniority calculations. The High Court’s view that seniority should start only after completion of the two‑year probation was deemed “totally erroneous” and contrary to the plain language of the Service Regulations, 1967 . The appeal was allowed, and the Board was directed to recompute seniority from the initial appointment dates. Important Facts Direct recruits were appointed as Assistant Engineer (Trainees) in December 2000 and March 2001; internal candidates were promoted in 2002. Training lasted for a stipulated period before candidates entered the regular pay scale and began a two‑year probation. Internal selectees argued for a common seniority block from 2002, seeking parity with direct recruits. The Madras High Court initially upheld seniority from the initial appointment, but its division bench reversed this, prompting the Supreme Court review. UPSC Relevance Understanding how seniority is determined is crucial for GS II (Polity) and GS III (Governance & Public Administration). The case illustrates: The role of seniority in career progression, pay, and posting decisions in the public sector. The importance of service rules such as the Service Regulations, 1967 and how their interpretation can be contested in courts. The judicial hierarchy: Madras High Court decisions can be reviewed by the Supreme Court , underscoring the checks‑and‑balances in administrative law. Way Forward Public‑sector bodies should ensure that recruitment notifications clearly specify how seniority will be calculated, referencing the relevant service regulations. States may need to revise existing seniority lists to align with the Supreme Court’s interpretation, thereby avoiding future litigation. For aspirants, the case reinforces the need to study service rules, judicial pronouncements, and their impact on administrative careers.