No.16147 of 2011and M.P.No.1 of 20111.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu v. K.Madalaimuthu2.Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.1.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALWrit Petition No.16147 of 2011and M.P.No.1 of 20111.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Special-A) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.2.The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.3.The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai-9.4.The Inspector General of Registration, 120, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28... Petitioner Vs.1.K.Madalaimuthu2.Union of India, rep.by Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi.3. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi-11.4.The Selection Committee for Selection to the IAS, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench.... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for therelevant records relating to the order passed in O.A.No.565 of 2011,dated 31.5.2011. For petitioners : Mr.N.Navaneetha Krishnan, AG assisted by Mr.S.T.S.Murthy, Spl.G.P.For R.1: Mr.VijayshankarO R D E RELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.The first respondent herein was a Direct Recruit DistrictRegistrar, on his being selected in Grade-I Examination conducted byTNPSC and he joined the service during 1989. Contending that therewere anomalies in the fixation of seniority in the cadre of DistrictRegistrar, since the State Government reckoned the seniority ofpromoted District Registrars from the date of their initial temporaryappointment and not from the date of their regularisation in theservice, the direct recruits have initiated writ proceedings beforethis Court, which ultimately culminated in their filing Civil AppealNos.2791-2793 of 2002 before the Honourable Apex Court and theHonourable Apex Court by the judgment dated 4.7.2006 (K.Madalaimuthuvs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 6 SCC 558), allowed the said CivilAppeals directing the Department to re-fix the seniority of promoteesfrom the date of their regularization, instead of initialappointment. 2. Since the orders of the Honourable Apex Court were notimplemented in time, and the Government promoted one Nagasubramanian,junior to the first respondent/applicant as Additional InspectorGeneral, the first respondent/applicant filed Contempt PetitionNo.208 of 2006 before the Honourable Apex Court. Pending thecontempt proceedings, the Department issued orders of promotion, on19.1.2007, promoting the first respondent/applicant as AdditionalInspector General of Registration with retrospective effect from1998, but the seniority list was not revised, consequent to theorders of the Honourable Supreme Court. The seniority list came tobe revised only after filing of subsequent contempt petitions beforethe Honourable Apex Court, as a result, many officers who were abovethe first respondent/applicant till such time, became his juniors. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. During the pendency of the above said writ proceedings andthe civil appeals and the contempt proceedings, the AnnualConfidential Reports of the first respondent/applicant, between 1998and 2008 came to be recorded by the officers, who ultimately becamehis juniors in the revised seniority list of April, 2008. 4. In the meantime, five vacancies arose in the year 2007 forpromotion to the IAS, but the name of the first respondent/applicantwas not considered, since the seniority list was not revised at thatpoint of time. Thereafter, the State Government proposed to fill uptwo vacancies in the year 2009 by selection from among the non-StateCivil Service Officers and the Select Committee, which met on22.9.2009, short listed ten officers from among 43 officers to besponsored for interview by the UPSC in terms of the relevantregulations, but the name of the first respondent/applicant was notin the list of the said 43 candidates, on the ground of poorgradings. Aggrieved, the first respondent/applicant had again filedContempt Application Nos.381-383 of 2009 before the HonourableSupreme Court. Though the Honourable Apex Court had initiallygranted stay of selection of the IAS, subsequently, the said contemptapplications were disposed of on 18.1.2010, by recording theundertaking given by the learned Attorney General to the effect thatthe name of the first respondent/applicant would be considered forselection for IAS without taking into consideration the ACRs for theperiod from 22.5.2006 to 31.3.2008. In spite of such an undertakinggiven on behalf of the Department by the learned Attorney General,the name of the first respondent/applicant was not considered for thetwo vacancies of the year 2009 on the ground of poor gradings.Hence, the first respondent/applicant filed O.A.No.954 of 2010 beforethe Tribunal, praying to direct the respondents therein to considerhis name for appointment to IAS, by selection in terms of the IAS(Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997 against the two vacanciesnotified for the year 2009.5. Since the Tribunal has allowed the said OriginalApplication, the respondents therein/the authorities have filedW.P.No.29573 of 2010 before this Court and a Division Bench of thisCourt, headed by and speaking through one of us (Elipe Dharma Rao,J.), by the order dated 22.2.2011 has disposed of the said writpetition with the following observations and findings:"In support of their contention that the firstrespondent/applicant got less gradings when compared toTmt.Sudha Malliah, which resulted in non-consideration ofthe name of the applicant for the two vacancies arose inthe year 2009, the writ petitioners have submitted beforeus the original files, which has substantiated the abovecontentions of the writ petitioners. Therefore, we areunable to upheld the direction issued by the Tribunal toconsider the name of the first respondent/applicant for thetwo vacancies arose in the year 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. On a complete analysis of the entire materialsplaced on record, we have no hesitation to hold that thedelay caused on the part of the writ petitioners inimplementing the directions of the Honourable Apex Court,in revising the seniority list, has caused much prejudiceto the first respondent/applicant. The Honourable ApexCourt has allowed the Civil Appeal Nos.2791-2793 of 2002 on4.7.2006, but the first respondent/applicant was givenpromotion as Additional Inspector General of Registration,with retrospective effect from 1998 only on 19.1.2007, thattoo after filing of contempt applications by the applicant.But, still, the seniority list was kept unrevised till2008, which obstructed the first respondent/applicant fromclaiming his name to be considered for the five vacanciesthat arose in the year 2007 and paved way for the names ofsome of the juniors of the first respondent/applicant toget included and thus the juniors of the firstrespondent/applicant got fortuitous opportunity of beingcalled for selection to the IAS, like Mr.R.Shanmugam, whowas placed junior to the first respondent/applicant in there-fixed seniority list and was holding only a junior rankof Deputy Inspector General of Registration. 9. We have no hesitation to hold that the snail paceattitude exhibited on the part of the writ petitioners inimplementing the orders of the highest Court of the landhas caused much prejudice to the case of the firstrespondent/applicant. Had everything been done in time, inour considered view, the first respondent/applicant wouldhave got a chance to get his name included in therelatively large list of 2007 with five vacancies.However, since there is no prayer of the firstrespondent/applicant to consider his name for the fivevacancies of the year 2007, we are unable to go furtherdeep into this aspect of the matter.10. Therefore, while setting aside the direction ofthe Tribunal to conduct DPC for the two vacancies of theyear 2009, and further directing the firstrespondent/applicant to file a comprehensive OriginalApplication before the Tribunal for inclusion of his namefor the five vacancies of the year 2007, if he is soadvised, we dispose of this writ petition." 6. This order of the Division Bench of this Court has becomefinal, since no appeal has been preferred by any of the parties.Thereupon, the first respondent herein has filed O.A.No.565 of 2011before the 5th respondent Tribunal, praying to direct the respondentstherein to consider and appoint him to the IAS by selection in termsof the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 against the 5vacancies notified for the year 2007 in the light of the judgment ofthis Court in W.P.No.29573 of 2010, dated 22.2.2011 with all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consequential and attendant benefits of seniority, pay fixation,arrears etc.7. The Tribunal, considering the order passed by this Court inW.P.No.29573 of 2010, dated 22.2.2011, has disposed of the saidOriginal Application by the order dated 31.5.2011, with the followingdirections: "a. There will be a direction to the respondents to considerand appoint the applicant to the IAS by Selection in termsof the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997against the vacancies notified for the year 2007 in thelight of the judgment of the High Court in W.P.29573/2010,dt.22.2.2011 with all consequential and attendant benefitsof seniority, pay fixation etc.b. While appointing the applicant in respect of the vacancyof the year 2007, the said appointment should be adjusted inthe future vacancy as per the sanctioned strength. c. In the event of selection and appointment of theapplicant, the selection of the persons for the year 2007should not be disturbed except fixation of their senioritywith the applicant.d. The above exercise shall be completed within a period offour weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.e. However, there will be no order as to costs."8. Aggrieved, the respondents 4 to 7 before the Tribunal havecome forward to file this writ petition. 9. Heard Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General forthe writ petitioners an Mr.Vijay Shankar for firstrespondent/applicant.10. The main ground of attack to the order passed by theTribunal by the writ petitioners is that the vacancies for the year2007 have already been filled up. It is within the knowledge of thisCourt, when an order has been passed in the earlier round oflitigation in W.P.No.29573 of 2010 on 22.2.2011, that the vacanciesof the year 2007 would not have been kept pending all these years.When there is ample material on record to the effect that anillegality has been perpetrated on the first respondent/applicant,presumably for the reason that he is knocking the doors of the legalfora against the illegality or inaction of the concerned authorities,considering the totality of circumstances alone, we have directed thefirst respondent/applicant to file a comprehensive application beforethe Tribunal for the vacancies of the year 2007, if he is so advised.The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.29573 of 2010, dated22.2.2011 has attained finality and now by way of this writ petition,the petitioners, are trying to challenge the said order, as if thisCourt is ignorant of the procedure contemplated under law for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ selection of IAS and that it is also ignorant of the fact that thevacancies of the year 2007 have already been filled up. 11. Every time, the applicant/first respondent is being drivenfrom pillar to post by the writ petitioners, presumably since heknocked the doors of judicial fora for relief. We are forced tocomment so, since in spite of the order by the Honourable Apex Court,the writ petitioners have exhibited slackness and purposely sloweddown the implementation of the order of the Honourable Apex Court,leading to filing of contempt petitions by the first respondent. Ashas already been observed by us in the order dated 22.2.2011, 'hadeverything been done in time, in our considered view, the firstrespondent/applicant would have got a chance to get his name includedin the relatively large list of 2007 with five vacancies'. Havingalready deprived the first respondent of his due, the petitionershave again come forward to file this writ petition, as if the orderpassed by the Tribunal is illegal, ignoring the fact, it is nothingbut an order passed towards implementation of the order alreadypassed by this Court in W.P.No.29573 of 2010, dated 22.2.2011, whichwas allowed to attain finality by the petitioners. Having allowedthe said order of this Court to attain finality, the petitioners arenot justified in filing this writ petition, since it would amount toseeking this Court to sit as an appellate authority over and abovethe order dated 22.2.2011, which is quite impermissible. TheTribunal, while allowing the prayer of the applicant/firstrespondent, was so cautious in protecting the interest of thepersons, who were selected against the 2007 vacancies. Therefore, noprejudice whatsoever would also be caused to such selected candidates.12. Therefore, holding this writ petition as a vexatiouslitigation filed by the writ petitioners, to further purchase andprolong the time, in order to deprive the first respondent of hisdue, particularly when the order of this Court in W.P.No.29573 of2010, dated 22.2.2011 has attained finality and the writ petitionersare so casual and callous to the orders passed by the Honourable ApexCourt in the earlier round of litigation, we confirm the order passedby the Tribunal, dismissing this writ petition. The writ petitionersare directed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal within twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarRao https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. Secretary to Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi.2. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi-11.3. The Selection Committee for Selection to the IAS, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi.4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench.1 cc To Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, Advocate, SR.28381 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.3038Order in W.P.No.16147/2011NM(CO)RH (20.1.12)