The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another vs M.N. Raghunathan

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.—This writ appeal is against the order passed by Mohan, J., in W.P. No. 5947 of 1975. It is unnecessary for us to

elaborately state the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the respondent herein became the regularly appointed Assistant by virtue of the

exemption granted to him in G.O.Ms. No. 2247, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1967. As per this Government order, the respondent was

exempted with effect from the date of the said order of the Government from passing the Revenue Tests, Parts I and III, so as to enable him to be

regularly appointed as an Assistant in the Board of Revenue. It is the admitted case that the respondent is a confirmed Assistant by virtue of the

said Government Order. It is also admitted that the respondent has passed Part II of the Revenue Test. Subsequently, the respondent was

promoted as Superintendent in the very same Department. When the Board of Revenue sought the concurrence of the Government as regards the

confirmation of the respondent as Superintendent, the Government issued a show cause notice to the respondent as to why the promotion of the

respondent as Superintendent should not be cancelled on the ground that he had not passed the required examinations and also on the ground that

the exemption granted will enure only for regularising him as Assistant in the Board of Revenue and ultimately, the Government cancelled the

proceedings of the Board dated 20th June, 1972. It is as against this order of the Government the respondent filed W.P. No. 5947 of 197S. The

learned Judge of this Court held that once the exemption is granted, whereby the respondent was not required to pass Parts I and III of the

Revenue Test, that exemption should be made available not only for the particular post which required those qualifications but even for further

promotion unless there is something to indicate to the contrary. With these observations the learned Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the

impugned order. It is as against this Order of the learned Judge, the Government has preferred the above writ appeal.

According to the learned Government Pleader, the exemption granted will enure only to the post of the Assistant and if the respondent has to be

promoted as the Superintendent, he has to qualify himself by passing the prescribed tests for the said post, that is, Parts I and TTT of the Revenue

Test apart from the other qualifications required for the same.

Mr. D. Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that once the exemption is granted it is deemed that the

person, is qualified for the post of an Assistant and there is no necessity for him to pass the prescribed tests for which exemption has been granted.

Hence, according to the learned Counsel, there is no need for the respondent to pass Parts I and III of the Revenue Test to qualify himself for the

post of Superintendent also.

Rule 30(b) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, states that no member of the service shall be eligible for promotion to any of the posts

mentioned in column (f) of Annexure TV unless and until he has passed the special tests or undergone the training, if any, specified in the

corresponding entry in column 2 thereof.

In Annexure IV it is stated that for the post of Superintendent in the Office of the Board of Revenue other than those in the Commercial Taxes

Branch, the person should have passed the Revenue Test Parts I, II and III and also Revenue survey training for a period of not less than four

weeks and service as Revenue Inspector in charge of a firka for a period of not less than one year.

In Annexure IV the qualification prescribed for the Assistants in the Office of the Board of Revenue other than those in the Commercial Tax

Branch is that the person should have passed Revenue Test Parts I, II and III.

As far as the present case is concerned,, there is no difficulty as the respondent has all other qualifications except the passing of Parts I and III

of the Revenue Test. G.O. Ms. No. 2247, Revenue Department, dated 28th December, 1967, clearly states that exemption is granted to M.N.

Raghunathan, who is the respondent herein, with effect from the date-of the said order from passing the Revenue Test Parts I and III in order to

enable him to be appointed as an Assistant in the Office of the Board of Revenue. This shows that the authorities thought it fit that the respondent

even without passing Parts T and ITT of the Revenue Test is proficient in; handling such subjects and that is why the exemption was granted while

the respondent was appointed as Assistant. It is clear from the Annexure IV, that for the post of Assistant also a person must pass Parts I, II and

III of the Revenue Tests. Once he acquires the knowledge in the said subject, and that has been recognised by the Government by granting the

exemption, it is too much on the part of the Government to state that the respondent must again pass the said test to qualify himself to the post of

Superintendent. The exemption was granted by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services

Rules. Rule 48 reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the Governor shall have power to deal with the case of any person or

class of persons serving in a civil capacity under the Government of Tamil Nadu or of any person who has or of any class of persons who have

served as aforesaid or any candidate or class of candidates for appointment to a service in such manner as may appear to him to be just and

equitable:

Provided that, where any such rule is applicable to the case of any person or class or persons, the case shall not be dealt with in any manner less

favourable to him or them than that provided by that rule.

It is by virtue of this rule, the exemption was correctly granted to the respondent who has put in sufficient number of years of service in the

Department and after considering his merit, the exemption was granted by the G.O. Ms. No. 2247, dated 28th December, 1967.

We are clearly of opinion that when the exemption was granted, the authorities had taken into consideration his experience and capacity and

then only such exemption was granted on merits which exemption must be deemed to have exempted the respondent fully from passing the

Revenue Tests Parts I and III for any post which requires such qualification, in the said Department. A reading of the G.O. Ms. No. 2247,

Revenue would further indicate that exemption granted in favour of the respondent from passing the Revenue Tests, Parts I and III is with

immediate effect: land for all purposes though in order to enable him to be appointed as an Assistant in the Board of Revenue immediately. The

other reason given by the Government to the effect that the appellant ought to have served as an Assistant for a period of one year is not supported

by any provision or rules and as such this will not be a disqualification for the respondent to become the Superintendent.

For all these reasons we are in complete agreement with the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court and as such, the writ appeal

is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.