AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharma Rao. J.
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
relating to the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai passed in O.A. No. 1405 of 2001 dated 22.02.2002 and quash the
same and further direct the 1st respondent to restore the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of the Assistant as per the order of the 1st
respondent dated 27.11.2000 issued in Na.Ka. No. 131113/97/paa2.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Respondents 2 to 20 were originally working in the cadre of Extension Officer/Manger,
Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade I in the Rural Development Department at Erode District. The writ petitioners were originally working in the
cadre of Assistant. After the introduction of Single Service Rule, the persons working under the Ministerial services were integrated with the
persons working in the Gramasevak service and seniority list was published as on 01.06.1979 based on the guidelines issued by the Government.
In implementation of the single service rule, the writ petitioners were reverted from the post of Assistant to the post of Junior Assistant inasmuch as
all of them were promoted temporarily after 01.06.1979 as Assistants and as per the feeder category seniority list, they were not eligible to
continue in the cadre of Assistant for want of vacancy. During 1990, the individuals who are erstwhile Gramasevak servants filed O.A. No. 1900
of 1990 apprehending reversion for want of test qualification which was newly prescribed viz., to the erstwhile Gramasevak servants. Both the writ
petitioners and respondents 2 to 20 were erstwhile ministerial servants for whom test was prescribed for promotion even prior to the introduction
of single service rules. In O.A. No. 1900 of 1990, the writ petitioners were figured as Respondents 2 to 12, who were impleaded themselves as
party respondents. The Tribunal, on 17.05.1991, while disposing of the said original application has passed an order holding that Grama Sevaks
and other Rural Welfare Officers who acquired the test qualification prior to 11.05.1990 need not be reverted and it was further held that
promotion given to Grama Sevak etc. prior to 12.04.1984 need not be disturbed. The matter went to the Hon''ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.
63-93/94, which extended the time limit to acquire test qualification for Grama Sevak categories till 04.05.1994. By virtue of the order passed by
the Tribunal and the Hon''ble Supreme Court, Grama Sevak and others who were not qualified, got an opportunity to continue in the promoted
posts, till they pass the test qualification on or before 04.05.1994. Accordingly, the first respondent refixed the seniority. Against the above said
refixation of seniority, a representation was sent by the respondents/applicants on 27.12.2000 to restore their seniority and it was not considered.
Hence they approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1405 of 2001.
In the counter affidavit filed in the above original application, it is stated that in G.O.Ms. No. 376, Rural Development & Local Administration
Department, dated 15.03.1978, the Government constituted an official committee, comprising of the Secretary, Rural Development and Local
Administration Department, the Director of Rural Development and Deputy Secretary to Government (Personnel) Rural Development and Local
Administration Department for framing Single Service Rules for all the posts in Panchayat Development Department. In G.O.Ms. No. 868, Rural
Development and Local Administration Department, dated 30.05.1979, the Government ordered that pending formulation of Single Service Rules,
all appointments made from 01.06.1979 to till the issue of Single Service Rules are purely temporary. Accordingly rules were framed by
G.O.Ms.Nos. 585,586, 587, 588 and 349, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 12.04.1984. As per the Single
Service Rules, the Ministerial Service and Grama Sevak Service were merged for single ladder promotion. The Grama Sevak Association as well
as the individuals of the Grama Sevak Service filed petitions against the Single Service Rules at High Court, Chennai, which were dismissed by the
High Court on 28.10.2006. Thereafter action was initiated to implement the above said rules. As per G.O.Ms. No. 325, Rural Development and
Local Administration Department, dated 26.04.1985, the Government has given 3 years period to pass the departmental test to the Grams Sevak
Service personnel from 12.04.1984 to 11.04.1987 and informed that during the concession period, they are entitled for promotion. It is further
stated that the writ petitioners who are respondents 2 to 12 in the original application were promoted as Assistants in the year 1985 and 1986 and
they were all fully qualified to hold the post at the time of promotion. But by the order of the District Collector, in order to implement Single
Service Rules in Erode District, 59 qualified Assistants were reverted as Junior Assistants and 59 unqualified Grama Sevake Grade II were
promoted as Assistants/Rural Welfare Officers Grade I as per the inter-se-seniority list with a condition to pass the Departmental test as per the
instructions stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 325, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 26.04.1985. But the writ petitioners
who are qualified to hold the post of Assistants (Ministerial Service Personnel) were reverted on the ground that they were not promoted as per
the integrated seniority. It is further stated that the period of 3 years to pass the test qualification was also extended upto 11.05.1990 to the Grama
Sevak Personnel. Out of 59 persons Grama Sevak even though not qualified were promoted and 22 Personnel have not passed the Departmental
test by 11.05.1990 were reverted to the post of Junior Assistants cadre. Against that, O.A.Nos. 1900 and 1904 of 1990 were filed before the
Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order and the matter went upto Supreme Court, which extended the time to pass the
test qualification upto 1994. In the meanwhile, as per G.O.(3D) No. 41, Rural Development (E4) Department, dated 23.10.1996, and as per the
letter of the Government dated 14.10.1992 and 11.03.1993, the seniority list of Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade I for the period from
01.06.1979 to 1989 has been issued by the District Collector, Erode through his proceedings dated 10.12.1996 and after considering the request
of the writ petitioners, their seniority has been fixed in the year 1986 in the above list according to the Single Service Rules and instructions of the
Government as per District Collector Proceedings dated 27.11.2000, which is impugned in the present Writ petition.
The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the comparative table of the applicants and the writ
petitioners/respondents 2 to 12 in the original application, set aside the order of refixing the seniority of writ petitioners, against which the present
writ petition has been filed.
Heard Mr. R. Muthukannu, learned Counsel for Ms.K.Dhanalakshmi, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr. Dhandapani, learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
In the counter affidavit in paragraph 15 and 16, the details of the date of passing of departmental tests, promotion etc. of the writ petitioners as
well as respondents are given, which reads as follows:
At present the respondents 2 to 12 are working as Assistant/Extension Officers. The date of passing of departmental tests, promotion to
Assistant cadre and Extension officer cadre of respondents 2 to 12 are as follows:
S. Name of the J.A. cadre Date of Promoted as Promoted as E.O.
No. Respondents seniority passing of Asst./ Date Asst. Again Promotion
Dept. tests of Joining /Date of date
Joining
1 P. Sengodan 481 11/85 5/9/86 1/8/91 --
2 K. Selvam 394 11/85 5/9/86 21/9/90 1/9/99
3 P. Jayaraman 478 11/85 5/9/86 5/8/91 --
4 P. Tamilselvi 498 5/85 23/12/85 1/8/91 --
5 K. Banumathi 511 11/85 5/9/86 22/7/91 --
6 R. Elango 513 11/85 6/9/86 1/8/91 --
7 K. Kulandaivelu 556 5/82 6/9/86 1/8/91 --
8 M. Panneerselvam 386 5/85 3/1/86 20/9/90 1/3/00
9 V. Manoharan 392 11/83 6/6/85 19/9/90 1/3/00
10 C.R. Rajammal 326 5/85 23/12/85 30/9/90 6/9/99
11 S. Senbagaselvi 385 5/85 10/1/86 20/9/90 1/9/99
Details about the applicants regarding date of passing of departmental tests, promotion to Assistant Cadre and Extension Officer cadre are
furnished as under:
S. Name of the J.A. cadre Date of Promoted as Promoted as E.O.
No. Respondents seniority passing of Asst./ Date Asst. Again Promotion
Dept. tests of Joining /Date of date
Joining
1 P. Shanmug- 477 5/87 1/8/91 11/9/92 ...
asundaram
2 C. Susila 410 5/90 31/7/91 ... 18/8/2000
3 P. Murugan- 487 5/89 31/8/92 ... ...
antham
4 M. Radhamani 399 5/87 21/9/90 27/7/91 3/11/99
5 C. Jagadambal 471 5/89 1/11/91 ... --
6 R. Padma 474 5/89 27/7/91 7/9/92 --
7 R. Natarajan 497 5/87 1/8/91 17/10/92 --
8 M. Chellamuthu 501 11/88 1/8/91 14/1/93 ...
9 S. Murugesan 504 5/89 14/1/93 ... ...
10 S. Maheswari 557 11/86 25/10/91 ... ...
11 M. Venkatach- 468 5/87 31/10/91 ... ...
alam
12 K. Kaliathal 486 5/88 20/8/92 ... --
13 T. Latha 476 11/89 27/7/91 31/8/92 ...
14 S. Manimehalai 536 11/91 4/3/94 ... --
15 P.M. Radhak- 470 5/87 1/11/91 ... --
rishnan
16 P. Shanmuga- 483 5/87 14/8/92 ... --
sundaram
17 C. Asokan 395 5/87 21/9/90 ... 1/3/00
18 R. Muthumee- 426 11/85 14/2/91 ... 1/3/00
nakshi
19 A. Selvi 424 5/88 29/7/91 ... 1/3/00
20 K. Mahalingam 411 5/89 27/7/91 ... 1/3/00
It is seen from the comparative table that the writ petitioners have already passed the departmental tests between November 1983 and May
1985 and were also promoted as Assistants and joined between 23.12.1985 and 10.01.1986 and promoted as Assistants again between
19.09.1990 and 01.08.1991, whereas respondents 2 to 20 passed the departmental tests only between November 1986 and November 1991
and promoted as Assistants between 21.09.1990 and 14.01.1993.
The writ petitioners have already qualified by passing the qualifying test as early as in 1985 and on considering that they are eligible, they were
promoted in the post temporarily. At that point of time, the respondents/applicants have not qualified and have not passed the test qualification.
Even then, on the ground of integrated seniority service rules in both the wings of the said department, the qualified persons were reverted and
unqualified Grama Sevaks were promoted giving time to pass the qualifying test initially for a period of three years upto 1987 and thereafter upto
1994. Even from out of 59 persons, 22 were not qualified. But, the only ground offered for reverting the writ petitioners is that no panel was
prepared as per the integrated seniority service rules. Therefore, after fixing the seniority, the writ petitioners were not given proper place in the
seniority list. As per their first promotion as they are already qualified, having passed the test qualification, the petitioners made a representation,
which was considered by the respondent Government and refixed their seniority, against which the respondents 2 to 20 made a complaint, which
cannot be entertained since even as per the admitted case of the respondent Government, promotions were given to the writ petitioners in the year
1985-86, when they are having the required qualification and eligible for promotion. But, the respondents/applicants who were not qualified, were
promoted by virtue of the introduction of integrated service rules, after reverting the qualified persons, viz., the petitioners giving an opportunity for
the respondents/applicants to acquire the test qualification after a long period of 10 years. Therefore, we are of the view that great injustice has
been done to the writ petitioners and they are made to suffer even though they have acquired the test qualification prior to the respondents. When
the respondents have not acquired the test qualification, they are not entitled to be promoted. But, the Government has promoted them, after giving
10 years time to acquire the qualification, which opportunity was also utilised by some of them since and then some of them have not acquired the
qualification. The writ petitioners who have acquired the test qualification prior to the respondents should not be allowed to suffer at the instance of
the unqualified persons. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Collector is sustainable in law. Therefore, the reasons
given by the Tribunal in interfering with the order passed by the District Collector in refixing the seniority of the writ petitioners is liable to be set
aside and accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.