E. Santhanam vs The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration and The District Collector

V. Dhanapalan, J.—Heard Mr. G.Elanchezhiyan, learned Counsel for thePetitioner and Ms. V.M.Velumani, learned Special

GovernmentPleader appearing for the Respondents.

The order passed by the second Respondent inproceedings in Na.Ka. No. 33350/2008. A2, dated 28.7.2008, hasbeen called in question,

whereby, the Petitioner''s claimfor promotion as Junior Assistant and Assistant as per theGovernment Order in G.O.Ms. No. 781 and 386,

RevenueDepartment, dated 25.5.1985 and 1.10.2001, respectively,was rejected and the Petitioner seeks to quash the same andalso seek for a

direction to the Respondents to promote thePetitioner as Junior Assistant and Assistant as per thesaid G.Os. with all consequential benefits.

It is the case of the Petitioner that he wasselected and appointed to the post of VillageAdministrative Officer (for short, ''VAO'') through the

TamilNadu Public Service Commission (for short, ''TNPSC'') andappointed to that post on 12.3.1984. Thereafter, hisprobation was declared and

he continued to work in the sameposition. It is the Petitioner''s claim that as perG.O.Ms. No. 781, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985, the

Government accepted the recommendation of the firstRespondent-Special Commissioner and Commissioner forRevenue Administration in toto

that the VAO might beeligible for appointment as Junior Assistant by transferafter they completed as VAO for a period of not less thanfive years

and the claim for appointment as JuniorAssistant might be considered for 20% of regular vacanciesarising in a District every year and the said

appointmentas Junior Assistant might be filled up in accordance withthe seniority in the post of VAO.

Thereafter, the Government amended the SpecialRules of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service in G.O.Ms. No. 362,Personnel and Administrative

Reforms Department, dated21.6.1988, whereby, the Government stated that the VAO postwas included in the Special Rules and classified

ascategory 14(a). Based on the said G.O., the Government alsoissued instructions to their subordinates that all theCollectors were requested to

initiate necessary action todraw the panel for the year 1992 by 1.5.1992n afterobtaining necessary option from the VAOs. who havecompleted

five years of service and to issue necessaryorders. As there was No. preparation of the panel fortransferring the VAO to the post of Junior

Assistant under 20% quota, the Petitioner made a representation to considerhis name for transfer from the post of VAO to the post ofJunior

Assistant as per the G.O. It was orally replied thatthe candidate selected by the TNPSC on merits will beappointed to the post of Junior Assistant

on conversiononly after exhausting Screening Committee VAOs.

It is also the case of the Petitioner that as therewas delay of three years in making the appointment by theTNPSC, the Petitioner joined the

service only in 1984 asVAO. In the meanwhile, certain VAOs were appointedtemporarily by the second Respondent and they were notselected

through the TNPSC. Those persons appointed by theScreening Committee without the recruitment by the TNPSC,competed with the candidates

selected through the TNPSC,even though they were not direct recruits. The claim of thePetitioner for his appointment to the post of

JuniorAssistant, over the candidates appointed by the ScreeningCommittee, continued with several representations andthereafter, he moved the

Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal(for short, ''Tribunal'') in O.A. No. 1902 of 1994 for adirection to the Respondents to consider the situation

andthe service condition of the Petitioner without any avenueof promotion, in consonance with the decision of the Government in G.O.Ms. No.

417, Personnel and AdministrativeReforms Department, dated 1.4.1993. The said O.A. wastransferred to this Court and re-numbered as a

WritPetition, in view of the abolition of the Tribunal and thesame was disposed of by this Court on 19.9.2007 with adirection to the Respondents

to consider the representationof the Petitioner and that if the representation is stillpending. After that, the second Respondent issued theimpugned

order dated 28.7.2008 stating that the request ofthe Petitioner can be considered as and when his turn comesfor promotion as per the seniority

and will be consideredfor promotion in accordance with the Government Orders.

The impugned order dated 28.7.2008 is challenged in this Writ Petition on the ground that the order, withoutdisclosing as to how many persons

were promoted as JuniorAssistant and Assistant and the impugned order is contraryto the Government Orders in various G.Os., as referred

toabove and the Petitioner''s case for promotion was notconsidered in accordance with law, and therefore, it is inviolation of Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution ofIndia. As per the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 781,Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985 and G.O.Ms. No.

386,Revenue Department, dated 1.10.2001, he has not been given weightage, and was denied the promotion to the post ofJunior Assistant, as the

VAO category is the feedercategory to the said post.

The Respondents filed counter affidavit, inter-aliastating that the Village Administration was earlierfunctioning with the help of part-time Village

Officers,and in 1980, the Government took a policy decision torevamp the Village Administration set up. Accordingly, theTamil Nadu Ordinance

No. 10 of 1980 was promulgated by HisExcellency the Governor on 13.11.1980 for the abolition ofthe post of part-time Village Officers and the

post wasabolished with effect from 14.11.1980 by the Tamil NaduAbolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Act, 1981(3 of 1981) and in the

place of part-time Village Officers,full time Village Administrative Officers were appointed inRevenue villages. The VAOs were brought within the

purviewof the TNPSC as per G.O.Ms. No. 2747, Revenue Department,dated 12.12.1980 and the Rules were amended to the effectthat the

appointment to the post of VAO shall be made bydirect recruitment. Accordingly, VAOs were directlyrecruited by the TNPSC.

In the meantime, as a result of litigations overappointment of VAOs and based on the guidelines issued by the Tribunal, the Government Order

in G.O.Ms. No. 1195,Revenue Department, dated 6.7.1982 was issued, as per which, Ex-Village Officers who held office on 14.11.1980 and

possessed the minimum general educationalqualifications (Category-I) were appointed as VAOs by theScreening Committee. In G.O.Ms. No.

1287, Revenue Department,dated 6.7.1988, orders were issued for appointment of Ex-Village Officers who held office on 14.11.1980, but

passedSSLC subsequent to 20.2.1982 (Category-I) sponsored by theEmployment Exchange as VAO under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules,

subject to certain conditions.

Subsequently, in G.O.Ms. No. 954, Revenue Department,dated 16.10.1997, orders were issued for appointment of Ex-Village Officers who

were not in service on 14.11.1980, buthad worked as part-time Village Officers for a short periodprior to 14.11.1980, but possessed the

minimum generaleducational qualifications, if they are otherwise qualified(Category-III), as VAOs in any of the then existing orfuture vacancies as

per the seniority maintained on thebasis of their length of service. Thus, the existingvillage administrative set up consists not only of the Ex-Village

Officers recruited through the Screening Committeeand other methods, but also the VAOs recruited through the TNPSC.

While so, in respect of the promotion of VAO, theGovernment issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 781, RevenueDepartment, dated 25.5.1985:

(i) that the VAOs were eligible for appointment asJunior Assistants by transfer after completion of not lessthan five years of service;

(ii) the claim of VAOs for appointment as JuniorAssistants may be considered against 20% of the vacanciesin a District every year and

(iii) on the basis of the seniority list prepared for the whole transfer as Junior Assistant, should be made.

Subsequently, in supersession of the above G.O., theGovernment issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 386, RevenueDepartment, dated 1.10.2011 to

promote the selection gradeVAO who have completed 10 years of service, directly asAssistants, subject to certain other conditions. The numberof

direct Assistants for promotion from the selection gradeVAOs had been restricted to 10% of the vacancies arising inthe Districts.

Further, the Government emphasised that the JuniorAssistants converted from the VAOs as per G.O.Ms. No. 781,Revenue Department,

dated 25.5.1985 and later promoted as Assistants, should not be affected as against theAssistants promoted from selection grade VAOs as

perG.O.Ms. No. 386, Revenue Department, dated 1.10.2001. Asthere were some administrative problems in implementing thesaid G.O.,

necessary amendments to the G.O and also therelevant clarifications have since been issued inG.O.Ms. No. 330, Revenue Department, dated

12.7.2004 and inGovernment letter No. 23760/Ser.VII/02-8, RevenueDepartment, dated 12.7.2004 respectively.

It is the stand of the Respondents in the counteraffidavit that the Ex-Village Officers who passed theminimum educational qualifications, were

appointed as perthe guidelines issued by the Tribunal, and they haveacquired training, qualifications, etc. while they wereworking as Village

Officers. Further, they have joined asVAOs prior to the joining of TNPSC candidates and hence,they were senior in all aspects than the VAOs

appointedthrough TNPSC. This seniority list was correctly followedwhile converting them as Junior Assistant or promoting themas Assistant from

the year 2001. In the year 1997, whenvacancies arose in the Junior Assistant cadre, 20 VAOs wereappointed as Junior Assistants in the

proceedings dated30.6.1997 in Rc.34103/97 A4, issued by the Personal Assistant (General) to Collector, Kancheepuram. But, onlyone VAO

Mr. Pasupathi is continuing as Junior Assistant andthe rest of the VAOs who were converted as JuniorAssistant, have given the option for re-

conversion as VAOand accordingly, they were working as VAO. From the year2001, VAOs are eligible for promotion as Assistants,instead of

converting as Junior Assistant and thenpromoting them as Assistant in accordance with theirseniority under Junior Assistant cadre. No. persons

juniorto the Petitioner has been promoted as Assistant so far.The Respondents further state that none of the VAOs, eitherfrom Screening

Committee or from TNPSC, have so far beenpromoted as Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar as alleged in theWrit Petition.

According to the Respondents, whenever, theestimate of vacancies are approved by the SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner for Revenue

Administration,Chennai, for the drawal of Assistant list, the SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administrationspecifically

mentioned the number of vacancies that are tobe filled up by promoting from VAO post in the sanctionorder itself. Based on this order, claims are

invited fromthe willing VAOs for promotion as Assistant and in accordance with their seniority in the VAO cadre, they arebeing promoted without

any deviation. The Petitioner hasfiled the Writ Petition with an intention to drag thedrawal of Assistant list in future, and thus, fencing hisseniors

from getting promotion as Assistant. As and whenhis seniority comes for promotion, he will be promoted.According to the seniority, he is the 8th

VAO to be promotedas Assistant and he will get his chance for promotion asAssistant in the 80th vacancy, as 10% of vacancy in theAssistant

cadre is earmarked from the VAOs. If his seniorsrelinquished their rights of promotion, then he will gethis promotion earlier.

In the counter affidavit, it is further statedthat neither the Petitioner nor any other affected VAOsfiled any appeal petition against the posting of

VAOs asJunior Assistant or promotion of VAOs as Assistants. Hence,the orders so far issued are in accordance with theGovernment Orders, as

per seniority and as per law andnatural justice. Therefore, it is well settled long agothat the candidates selected through the ScreeningCommittee

are senior to the candidates selected by theTNPSC. The candidates selected through the ScreeningCommittee joined duty from 1982 onwards,

whereas the candidates selected by the TNPSC joined duty in 1984 only.This procedure has been followed throughout the State ofTamil Nadu.

Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner cannotbe sustained and the orders passed by the Respondents arevalid and the Respondents prayed for

dismissal of the WritPetition.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, inhis submissions, vehemently contended that the GovernmentOrder in respect of 10% quota for

promotion of VAOs to thepost of Assistant has been issued on 1.10.2001 andtherefore, it is incumbent on the part of the Respondentsto prepare

the panel and promote the Petitioner to thatpost immediately on issuance of the G.O. He furthercontended that till date, No. seniority list has

beenprepared, and therefore, the Petitioner''s claim forpromotion has to be considered by the drawing of properpanel as per the seniority list. The

impugned proceedings,without disclosing the said information, will affect thePetitioner''s right, and therefore, it is vitiated in law.

On the other hand, the learned Spl.G.P. appearingfor the Respondents contended that it is settled principlethat as per the policy of the

Government, on abolition ofthe post of Village Officer, after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part-Time Village

OfficersAct, 1981 from 14.11.1980 and all other Government Orders,would give a clear position of placing the persons who wereEx-Village

Officers as VAOs and the persons appointed bythe Screening Committee prior to the appointment of thePetitioner recruited through the TNPSC,

are placed in theirrespective seniority and it is admitted position that thePetitioner who was recruited through the TNPSC, is belowthe candidates

appointed through the Screening Committee.Therefore, the decision taken by the Respondents in theimpugned proceedings cannot be found

faulted with.

On the above background of pleadings, I have heardthe learned Counsel on either side and perused the materialdocuments and the relevant

Rules.

The circumspection of the facts, reveals that theVillage Administration, which earlier functioned with thehelp of part-time Village Officers,

changed to full timeVAOs with the policy decision of the Government andOrdinance was promulgated on 13.11.1980, which became thelaw by

enactment of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts ofPart-time Village Officers Act, 1981 and thereafter, theGovernment brought the VAO post

under the purview of theTNPSC as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 2747, 14 Revenue Department, dated 12.12.1980.

It is not in dispute that the persons worked asVillage Officers prior to the commencement of the said Act,and some persons moved the

Tribunal and as per the order ofthe Tribunal, the Government Order was issued inG.O.Ms. No. 1195, Revenue Department, dated 6.7.1982 and

theEx-Village Officers who held office on 14.11.1980 andpossessed the minimum general educational qualifications(Category-I) were appointed

as VAOs by the ScreeningCommittee. This position is admitted by the personsconcerned in the Revenue Administration, particularly, theVAOs,

who were appointed through the TNPSC, and therefore,the persons who were appointed under the ScreeningCommittee, as per the order of the

Tribunal, were placedin the respective positions, which makes it clear that thepersons appointed through the Screening Committee, wereplaced

above the persons appointed through the TNPSC.

While that being the position, the seniority wasfixed by various Government Orders as stated supra, andthereafter, the Government took a

policy decision andissued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 386, Revenue Department, dated1.10.2001, whereby, to provide promotional opportunity,

theselection grade VAOs who have completed ten years of service, were promoted as Assistants, subject to certainother conditions and this was

restricted to 10% in respectof the vacancy arising in the Districts. The Governmentemphasised that the Junior Assistants converted from VAOsas

per G.O.Ms. No. 781, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985,and later promoted as Assistants, should not be affected asagainst the Assistants

promoted from selection grade VAOsas per G.O.Ms. No. 386, Revenue Department, dated 1.10.2001.

There were difficulties in implementation of theG.O., which prevailed prior to the issuance ofG.O.Ms. No. 781, dated 25.5.1985 and after the

issuance ofG.O.Ms. No. 386, dated 1.10.2001. In the above statedposition, the Respondents have taken a stand that therewere some

administrative problems in implementing theabove G.Os., and necessary amendments were issued inG.O.Ms. No. 330, Revenue Department,

dated 12.7.2004 and inGovernment Letter No. 23760/Ser.VII/02-8, RevenueDepartment, dated 12.7.2004 respectively, thereby, thedifficulties

which arose earlier out of the implementationof the earlier Government Orders, have been clarified andamendments were issued and the authorities

have startedimplementing the orders thereafter, after the saidamendments.

This position makes it clear that though 10% quotawas prescribed under the post of VAO to the promotion ofAssistant, which has been

brought on 1.10.2001 byG.O.Ms. No. 386, it has been implemented after the amendmentwas issued in G.O.Ms. No. 330, Revenue Department,

dated12.7.2004 and also the clarifications made thereunder onthe same day issued in Government letter inNo. 23760/Ser.VII/02-8, Revenue

Department, issued on thesame day.

That being the position, the claim of thePetitioner for preparation of the panel between 2001 and2004 and inclusion of his name, would not

arise forconsideration, and therefore, the claim of the Petitionercannot be sustained and the same has to be rejected.

In the counter affidavit, it is stated that basedon the Government Orders issued by the Respondents, theclaims were invited from the willing

VAOs for promotion asAssistants, and in accordance with their seniority in theVAO cadre, the VAOs were promoted without any deviation,and

as and when the Petitioner''s seniority comes forpromotion, he will be promoted. It is further stated in thecounter affidavit that according to the

seniority, thePetitioner is the 8th VAO to be promoted as Assistant and he will get his chance for promotion as Assistant in the 80th vacancy, as

10% of vacancy in the Assistant cadre isearmarked from the VAOs and if his seniors relinquishedtheir rights of promotion, then he will get his

promotionearlier.

Today, learned Special Government Pleader hasplaced on record the letter issued by the District RevenueOfficer, Kancheepuram to the

Government Pleader, dated2.10.2009 in Na.Ka. No. 50083/2008/A2, wherein, the copy ofthe District Gazette of Kancheepuram, dated

1.10.2009, wasenclosed, wherein, the Petitioner''s name has been includedin the seniority list of 2009 for the post of Assistant andthe proceedings

dated 22.9.2009 issued inNa.Ka. No. 12615/09/A2 by District Revenue Officer,Kancheepuram, was also enclosed, wherein, the

Petitioner''sname has been included in the seniority list of 2009 for the post of Assistant.

After noticing the said proceedings, still, thelearned Counsel for the Petitioner consistently pleadedthat the preparation of panel of VAOs for

promotion to thepost of Assistant, during the period in question, i.e.between 2001 and 2004, is still existing and it has to beconsidered by the

Respondents.

Upon considering the above stated legal positionand analysing the various Government Orders issued fromtime to time, and the proceedings

and the relevant factsindicated by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties,I am of the considered view that the impugned order issuedby the

second Respondent does not suffer from any legalinfirmity and the Writ Petition deserves No. meritconsideration and the claim of the Petitioner has

to berejected.

In view of the consistent plea taken by thePetitioner that preparation of panel between 2001 and 2004was not done by the Respondents and it

is incumbent ontheir part to prepare the panel and thereby give anopportunity of hearing to the VAOs who are in the benefitof 10% quota, if this

grievance is still existing andsubsisting, it is open for the Petitioner to move thecompetent authority to make a detailed representation andif such a

representation is made, it is for the competentauthority to look into the same on merits and in accordancewith law.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No. costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.