A. Asokan vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 9.3.1999 passed by the second respondent confirmed in

G.O.(2D) No. 440 Revenue Department, dated 11.11.2005 insofar as declining to include petitioner''s name in the panel of Assistants for the year

1990 and for a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Assistants for the year 1990, fix seniority in the

cadre of Assistant and promote the petitioner as Deputy Tahsildar with all consequential benefits.

The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as per the pleadings are as follows:

(a) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on Compassionate ground on 20.11.1985 in the Revenue Department due to the death of

petitioner''s father, while in service on 17.6.1979, leaving the petitioner''s family in harness.

(b) The petitioner was ousted from service on 31.3.1986 on the ground of non-availability of the post/vacancy. Petitioner submitted repeated

representations to the respondents, pursuant to which on 2.11.1987 he was re-appointed as Junior Assistant in the Panchayat Union Development

Department.

(c) According to the petitioner, he passed the departmental tests in May, 1988. Petitioner and one R.Balakrishnan, who are similarly placed, filed

O.A. No. 2197 of 1991 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and prayed for regularisation of their services in the Revenue Department

with effect from their dates of original appointment (for petitioner from 20.11.1985). The said original application was allowed by the Tribunal by

order dated 19.11.1992. The fourth respondent in compliance with the said order, re-appointed the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Revenue

Department by order dated 11.12.1993 and the petitioner was posted in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti.

(d) It is the contention of the petitioner that had he been allowed to continue in the Revenue Department, he would have been sent for Survey and

Settlement Training in the year 1986 itself. The fourth respondent, after posting the petitioner in the Revenue Department, deputed the petitioner

and 11 other Junior Assistants/Typists for Survey and Settlement Training by order dated 1.10.1993. Petitioner successfully completed the said

training. However, the petitioner was not appointed as Assistant since his name was not included in the 1994 panel for promotion to the post of

Assistant.

(e) Petitioner submitted a representation on 13.12.1995 and requested for inclusion of his name in the panel. Again petitioner''s name was not

included in the 1995 panel on the ground that the order regarding regularisation of his services was awaited from the Government. On 10.2.1996

petitioner submitted representation to the second respondent and prayed for including his name in the 1990 panel as he was not responsible for the

delay in completing the Survey and Settlement Training.

(f) The first respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 203 Revenue Department dated 16.4.1996 and ordered to create two supernumerary posts in the

Revenue Department in the cadre of Junior Assistant for the period from 31.3.1986 to 1.11.1987 to treat the period of non-employment of the

petitioner and other person as in-service, without monetary benefit, so as to regularise the services from the date of original appointment in terms of

the order of the Tribunal dated 19.10.1992. The fourth respondent in compliance with the said Government order regularised the petitioner''s

service in the Revenue Department from the date of his original appointment i.e., from 20.11.1985 by order dated 22.7.1986.

(g) The fourth respondent again passed an order on 26.12.1996 and declared that the petitioner has completed probation in the post of Junior

Assistant on 20.11.1987 afternoon. The fourth respondent fixed the petitioner''s seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant at Sl. No. 307A placing

the petitioner in between one Adilakshmi-Sl. No. 307 and one V. Jayaraman-Sl. No. 308. The said Adilakshmi, Jayaraman and several other

Juniors viz., K. Muthiah, K. Ramaiah,, S.M.K. Mahalingam were included in 1990 panel of Assistants and therefore they became eligible for next

promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar.

(h) Petitioner submitted representations repeatedly to the second respondent for inclusion of his name in the panel of the year 1990. No action

having been taken, petitioner filed O.A. No. 9270 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and by order dated 18.11.1999,

second respondent was directed to dispose of petitioner''s representation dated 1.1.1998 within a period of ten weeks. On 9.3.1999,

representation of the petitioner was disposed of by stating that the petitioner became qualified for inclusion in the panel of Assistants for the year

1994 as the crucial date for acquiring the qualification was 15.3.1994. The fourth respondent was directed to include the petitioner''s name in the

panel of Assistants for the year 1994. As against the said order, petitioner preferred revision before the first respondent on 7.8.2000. The said

revision was also dismissed by the Government by the impugned Government Order dated 11.11.2005.

(i) The reasons stated are that the petitioner had completed the Survey and Settlement Training only in the year 1993 and hence inclusion of his

name in the panel of assistants for the year 1994 was in order. The crucial date for preparing the panel for the year 1990 being 15.3.1990, the

petitioner was not actually serving in the Madurai District Revenue Unit as he was re-appointed only on 12.2.1993.

(j) The said rejection orders are challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner having been treated to be in the Revenue

Department service, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 21.7.1991, which was implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.

203, dated 16.4.1996 and his service having been regularised in the Madurai District Revenue Department, his request for inclusion in the panel for

the year 1990 is bound to be accepted and the petitioner is deemed to be in Revenue Department service on the crucial date on 15.3.1990 due to

the regularisation and declaring probation as stated supra. It is further stated that the Petitioner''s juniors having been promoted as Assistants in the

year 1990, non-inclusion of petitioner''s name, even though he was assigned seniority number 307A is illegal. The delay in sending petitioner for

Survey and Settlement Training is on the part of the respondents and therefore the said delay cannot be put against the petitioner for denying his

due promotion and due to the non-inclusion of the petitioner''s name for the year 1990 for Assistant post, the petitioner is denied of further

promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar.

Respondents 1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit wherein all the factual aspects are not disputed. The reasons stated for non-inclusion of

petitioner''s name in the panel are that as on 15.3.1990, petitioner was not in Madurai District Revenue Unit and as per the Tamil Nadu Ministerial

Service Rules, the petitioner is not qualified for considering his name for inclusion in the panel of Assistants in the year 1990 in Madurai District.

No relaxation and exemption from the portion of the said rule was obtained by the petitioner by making necessary application before the

Government. There is no reason to compare the promotion given to others, as they have passed their Survey and Settlement Training, which is a

mandatory requirement for inclusion in the panel before the crucial date on 15.3.1990.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Counsel

appearing for respondents 5 to 8.

The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner has got right to be considered for inclusion of his name in the panel of

Assistants prepared for the year 1990 based on the crucial date-15.3.1990.

The respondents having regularised the petitioner''s service as Assistant with effect from 20.11.1985 by G.O.Ms. No. 203 Revenue

Department, dated 16.4.1996, petitioner shall be treated to have been in service of the Madurai District Revenue Unit and he was correctly

assigned Sl. No. 307A in the seniority list of Junior Assistants. The Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules prescribes special qualification for

promotion to the post of Assistant and the requirement is prescribed in Rule 30(b). The said rule reads as follows:

30(b) No member of the service shall be eligible for promotion to any of the posts mentioned in column (1) of Annexure IV unless and until he has

passed the special tests or undergone the training, if any, specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof.

For promotion the post of Assistant in the Revenue Department, the following are the qualifications prescribed as per Annexure IV, Clause (6)

Other Assistants in the Department (excluding the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and Revenue Settlement Parties).

(i) Revenue Test, Parts I, Insurance Investigators and III.

(ii) Revenue Survey Training for a period of not less than four weeks.

(iii) Settlement Training for a period of not less than one week.

Admittedly petitioner had obtained the above special qualifications in the year 1994 i.e., long after the crucial date for the panel year 1990 that is

15.3.1990.

As rightly contended in the counter affidavit, passing departmental test of Survey and Settlement Training is the mandatory requirement for which

the petitioner has not submitted any application before the Government, for relaxation of the said rule. Petitioner may be justified in seeking

relaxation of the said rule as he was not at fault for not passing the test before 15.3.1990, as he was illegally transferred to the Panchayat Union

Development Department and he was brought back to the Revenue Department, though factually on 12.2.1993, with retrospective effect from

20.11.1985. Not sending the petitioner for training at the appropriate time by the Department is due to the appointment of the petitioner in other

department. The same having been held illegal, a direction was issued by the Tribunal to re-absorb the petitioner in the original department from the

date of his original appointment and the said order having been implemented, the petitioner is not at fault for not passing the said test before the

crucial date-15.3.1990. However, by stating the said reason petitioner is bound to apply before the Government for the grant of relaxation and

only after such relaxation is granted, petitioner''s name could be included in the panel for the year 1990 and he will be entitled to get promotion as

Assistant from the date of his juniors.

In the light of the statutory provision referred above, viz., Rule 30(b) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, unless and until relaxation is

granted by the Government, petitioner is not entitled to get any right to include his name in the panel of the year 1990 for promotion to the post of

Assistant and subsequent promotion as Deputy Tahsildar, according to the rules. The reason stated by the respondents that the petitioner was not

in Madurai District Revenue Unit as on 15.3.1990 cannot be sustained.

The petitioner is eligible to get promotion as Assistant from the date of promotion given to his juniors and his name is eligible to be included in

the panel for the year 1990, only if relaxation of Rule 30(b) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules is obtained from the Government.

The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.