AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is working as an Assistant in the TalukOffice at Sangagiri, Salem District. He filed O.A. No. 7415of 2000
challenging the approved list of Deputy Tahsildarsprepared for the year 1998 issued by the 1st RespondentDistrict Collector, Salem dated
8.7.1999. The panelcomprised of 16 Assistants who are likely to be promoted asDeputy Tahsildar.
In the Original Application, Notice of Motion wasordered on 11.10.2000. In view of the abolition of theTribunal, the matter stood transferred
to this Court andrenumbered as W.P. No. 40861 of 2006. In the OriginalApplication, the Petitioner has impleaded the Respondents 3to 6 as
alleged juniors, whose names were included in thepanel. But, neither before the Tribunal nor before thisCourt, any efforts were taken to serve
those contestingRespondents.
The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that the contesting Respondents have not beenserved till date. The Supreme
Court vide its judgment in Suresh Vs. Yeotmal Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Another, has heldthat for non-joinder of parties in the matter of
seniority,no dispute can be adjudicated.
Even otherwise, the grievance of the Petitioner asprojected in the Original Application was that the DistrictCollector proposed a panel for the
post of Deputy Tahsildardated 25.1.1999. The panel had four annexures. Annexure 1related to general turn candidate. Annexure 2 relates
toBackward Class Community. Annexure 3 relates to M.B.C. Annexure 4 relates to the Schedule Caste Community. But,however, when the
impugned panel was finalised by orderdated 8.7.1999, it comprised of 16 candidates. Out of 16candidates, Serial No. 9 Thiru S. Thiruvarangan
and SerialNo. 13 Thiru R. Gopal belong to M.B.C. But, when the StateGovernment had reserved 20% of the vacancies to be filledup by M.B.C.
Community, the Petitioner could not make apoint that the panel contained only two candidates, whosenames were found in the Annexure 3 for
M.B.C. Therefore,the preparation of the panel by excluding reservation of 20% of reservation M.B.C was invalid.
On notice from the Tribunal, the 1st RespondentDistrict Collector filed a counter affidavit dated3.4.2002. In the counter affidavit, it was stated
that thePetitioner did not come within the zone of considerationand therefore his name was not included in the list. It wasalso stated that there
cannot be a further immediateclassification between members belong to M.B.C/DenotifiedCommunity, as both the communities comes under the
samecaption. Therefore, in paragraph 13, it was stated that20% reservation is for both M.B.C as well as De-notifiedtribes. Hence, the Petitioner''s
contention that when thefirst turn comes for M.B.C turn, the next turn should beDe-notified Tribes cannot be accepted.
Even otherwise, this Court vide its judgment in Registration Department S.C./S.T. and M.B.C. Employees General Welfare Sangam Vs. S.
Chandrasekar, The Government of Tamilnadu, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare (BCC) Department, The Inspector
General of Registration and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, held that in the matter ofpromotion, there has been no reservation
under Article 16(4-A) and such reservation will be invalid. In paragraph20, it was observed as follows:
In the light of theabove discussion, we are in agreementwith the conclusion arrived at by theTribunal. We are satisfied thatAssistants belonging
to Backward classand Most Backward class cannot claimreservation in the matter of higher postof Sub-Registrar Grade
II/ACTO/DeputyTahsildar without violating theguaranteed fundamental right of equalityenshrined in Article 16(1) of theConstitution. We also hold
that sinceAssistants who are appointed as Sub-Registrar Grade II/ACTO/DeputyTahsildar get the appointment to thehigher post above the post of
initialrequirement, such appointment ispromotion, consequently reservation isnot permissible in such appointments. Any provision to the extent it
appliesto the rule of reservation forappointment is not valid andunconstitutional after five years fromthe date of judgment in Indira Sawhney''scase.
We also hold that the reservationof appointments or post under Article 16(4) is confined to initialappointment only and cannot extend toprovide
reservation in the matter ofpromotion. If the Government feels that for ensuring adequate representation ofBackward class of citizens in anyservice,
class/category, it is necessaryto provide for direct recruitmentherein, it shall be open to do so. Butthe reservation in the matter ofpromotion was
permitted for the periodof 5 years from the date of judgmenti.e., from 16.11.1992 to 15.11.1997. Asrightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for
the respondents all the ingredients of the meaning of ""promotion"" in Rule 13 are found and only the method is by way of recruitmentby transfer in
the same Department withhigher scale of pay and all the norms ofpromotion are followed whileappointments are made. Therefore, inthe case on
hand, the ""recruitment bytransfer"" in all these cases in the sameDepartment is deemed to be the""promotion"" and for which the rules ofreservation
does not apply.
In view of the above, no case is made out. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.