ANDW.P.M.P.NOS.12246 v. The Commissioner & Director of Surveyand Settlement, Ch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.01.2008 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NOS.10813 TO 10818 AND 10179 TO 10182 OF 2006ANDW.P.M.P.NOS.12246,12248,12250,12252,12254,12256,11499,11501,11503 and 11505 of 2006G.K.Amaranathan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10813 of 2006B. Kannaki.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10814 of 2006K. Sankaran.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10815 of 2006K. Saraswathi.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10816 of 2006R. Sivakumaran.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10817 of 2006K. R. Janakaiah.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10818 of 2006V. G. Arumugam.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10179 of 2006R. Haridas.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10180 of 2006T. Elangovan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10181 of 2006A. Settu.. Petitioner in W.P.No.10182 of 2006Vs.The Commissioner & Director of Surveyand Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 5...1st Respondent in WP.10179 to 10181/061.The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5...1st Respondent in WPs.10813 to 10818/062.The Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5.3.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Vellore District, Vellore-9... 2nd and 3rd Respondents in W.P.Nos.10813 to 10818/06 and WP.Nos.10179 to 10182 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.Nos.10813 to 10819 of 2006 & WP.Nos. 10179 to 10182/06:-Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call forthe entire records made in the impugned order inNa.Ka.No.2/21357/2005(Ni.Aa), dated 28.11.2005 passed by thefirst respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, SC for Mr.S.N.Ravichandran in all W.PsFor Respondents: Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP in all W.Ps - - - - COMMON ORDERThis order shall govern these writ petitions 10 innumber. All these writ petitions concentrate in assailing anorder dated 28.11.2005 passed by the first respondent.2.The affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions areperused. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners and also the learned Additional Government Pleaderfor the respondents. 3.Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioners, thelearned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions:The petitioners herein were originally appointed as Surveyorcum Draftsman on consolidated pay through employment exchange andalso by a duly constituted selection committee by the State.They were given three months' training. Large number ofcandidates completed the training course on the very day. Underthe circumstances, a question as to fixation of seniority arosefor which purpose, a selection committee consisting of threemembers was constituted. The committee assessed the candidatesand assigned ranking in accordance with the merits, abilities andbased on the previous service records. On the said assessment, arank list was prepared and accordingly, the seniority was fixedto the candidates who have completed training successfully. Thiswas also done in accordance with the Tamil Nadu SubordinateService Rules 35(a). Consequent upon the preparation of the ranklist, the respondents appointed the candidates in the regulartime scale of pay and accordingly, the service of all thepetitioners herein were regularised in the post of Supervisors inthe year 1985 though on different dates. Accordingly, aseniority list in the post of Surveyor cum Draftsman was preparedand published by the third respondent in R.O.C.A5.23623/84 dated5.11.1984. The same was communicated to all concerned. Thepersons aggrieved over the same, preferred appeals against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seniority list. Finally, the seniority list dated 5.11.1984 wasfinalised and being followed. The petitioners were promoted tothe higher post based on the above seniority list. The personsalike the petitioners were already promoted to two, three higherlevel post. While the matter stood thus, the third respondentissued an order dated 15.10.1998 revising the seniority listafter lapse of 14 years in the category of Surveyor cum Draftsmanwhich is in the lower category. The revision of seniority wasmade by the third respondent even without a show cause notice andwithout providing any reasonable opportunity to defend, and thus,it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Whatare all stated in the order of revision of seniority is the orderof the State Administrative Tribunal dated 9.9.1991 inO.A.No.199/90. The said O.A. has got no relevance in respect ofVellore District. In fact four applicants from CuddaloreDistrict filed the said O.A. and the Tribunal directed theauthority concerned that the temporary appointment in the timescale of pay in accordance with the orders in G.O.Ms.No.910 C.T.& RE. Dated 10.8.1983 might be made strictly in accordance withthe seniority among the personnel on consolidated pay. Thus, theorder issued in Reference No.31/19555/89 dated 30.11.1989 of theAssistant Director of Survey, Cuddalore, was set aside. Therevision of seniority list in the lower category of Surveyor cumDraftsman after a lapse of 14 years by wrongly interpreting thejudgment of the Tribunal referred to above, is highlyunreasonable and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioners filed O.As.Before the Tribunal. On 26.12.1998, the first respondent sent aletter accepting the claim of the petitioners and directing thethird respondent to prepare the seniority list only on the basisof the date of selection. Accordingly, the earlier senioritylist dated 5.11.1984 was restored by an order dated 25.3.1999 bythe third respondent, and thus, the petitioners' seniority wasnot disturbed. On the same day, objections were filed againstthe seniority list by a few. It was dismissed by the thirdrespondent. Thus, it has become final. Now, without any basis,once again the first respondent directed the third respondent torevise the seniority list on the basis of the date of appointmentby the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2005. In suchcircumstances, the petitioners had no option than to approachthis Court for necessary orders of quashing the same.Accordingly, these writ petitions have been brought forth.4.The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents onthe above contentions.5.After considering the submissions made and looking intothe materials available, the court is of the considered opinionthat it is a fit case where the writ of certiorari has got to beissued. Concededly, these petitioners were originally appointedas Surveyor-cum-Draftsman on consolidated pay and subsequently,they were regularised after passing necessary test thereon. Atthe time when the training course was completed, since number ofcandidates were available, the question as to the fixing ofseniority list arose. Accordingly, process was done by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Selection Committee and considering the merits, abilities andbased on the previous service records, the seniority was actuallyfixed on 5.11.1984. It is not in controversy that the saidseniority list was given in accordance with the Tamil NaduSubordinate Service Rules 35(a). Originally, the seniority listwas disturbed following the order of the State AdministrativeTribunal made in O.A.No.199 of 1990 dated 09.09.1991. A perusalof the said order would clearly reveal that there were fourapplicants and orders were passed not directing either to disturbthe seniority or to make any deviation of the earlier senioritylist prepared, but it was only in respect of reservation.Following the said order of the Tribunal, the new seniority listwas prepared. Aggrieved over the same, these petitioners filedO.A.No.8874 of 1998. While the matter was pending, on26.12.1998, the first respondent sent a letter accepting that theclaim of these petitioners that the original seniority listshould not be disturbed was correct and has issued necessarydirections to the third respondent, by communication dated25.3.1999. Accordingly, the original seniority list, dated5.11.1984 was restored. 6.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that aperusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.199 of 1990would clearly indicate that the original seniority list was notto be disturbed or to be deviated, but it was only in respect ofthe question as to the reservation, which was claimed by thepetitioners thereon. Thus, once the claim was made by thepetitioners, challenging the original disturbance of theseniority list by filing O.A.No.8874 of 1998, the firstrespondent thought it fit that the claim of the petitioners wascorrect and it must be restored. Accordingly, the seniority listhas been restored. Thus, at this juncture, it has to be pointedout that it has become final. Once it has become final, after alapse of a decade, the instant order has been passed again torevise the seniority list, which in the opinion of the courtcannot be done for more reasons. 7.Originally, seniority list was fixed on 5.11.1984 strictlyfollowing the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules 35(a). Once itwas sought to be disturbed by a wrong interpretation of the orderof the Tribunal made in O.A.No.199 of 1990, objections were madeby the petitioners and also they approached the Tribunal by wayof an another O.A.No.8874 of 1998. Pending same, the senioritylist, dated 5.11.1984 has been restored and it has also reachedfinality. Apart from that, once it has been fixed, after a longlapse of time, it has been sought to be revised, which in theopinion of the court cannot be done. It is brought to the noticeof the court that in the instant case, all major part of thepetitioners have actually been promoted and they are all inhigher posts. Under these circumstances, if it is allowed to bedone, the rights of the parties, who are entitled to have theseniority to the higher posts, would be jeopardised, which thelaw cannot permit. Under these circumstances, from any angle, theorder of disturbing seniority list passed by the respondents has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ got to be necessarily quashed. Accordingly, the order underchallenge is quashed. All the writ petitions are ordered. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed.VvkSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5.2. The Commissioner & Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 5.3.The Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5.4.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Vellore District, Vellore-9.+ 5 ccs to Mr. S. N. Ravichandran, Advocate SR No. 226+ 6 ccs to Govt Pleader (SR Nos.519, 578, 580, 581, 582, 583)W.P.NOS.10813 TO 10818AND 10179 TO 10182 OF 2006RSV(CO)SR/8.1.2008