CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.2. P.Shanmugasundaram3. C.Susila4. R.Muruganandam5. R.Radhamany6. C.Jagathambal7. R.Padma8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.10.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELUW.P.No.40473 of 20021. K.Selvam2. P.Sengodan3. P.Jayaraman4. P.Tamilselvi5. K.Banumathi6. R.Elango7. K.Kuzhandaivelu8. M.Panneerselvam9. V.Manoharan10.C.R.Rajammal11.S.Shenbagaselvi.. PetitionersVersus1. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.2. P.Shanmugasundaram3. C.Susila4. R.Muruganandam5. R.Radhamany6. C.Jagathambal7. R.Padma8. R.Natarajan9. M.Chellamuthu10.S.Murugesan11.M.Venkatachalam12.K.Kaliathal13.T.Latha14.S.Manimehalai15.P.M.Radhakrishnan16.P.Shanmugasundaram17.C.Ashokan18.R.Muthumeenakshi19.A.Selvi20.K.Mahalingam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 104...RespondentsPrayer :Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords relating to the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal atChennai passed in O.A.No.1405 of 2001 dated 22.02.2002 and quash the sameand further direct the 1st respondent to restore the seniority of thepetitioners in the cadre of the Assistant as per the order of the 1strespondent dated 27.11.2000 issued in Na.Ka.No.131113/97/paa2.For Petitioners : Mr.R.Muthukannu for Ms.K.Dhanalakshmi For Respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani AGP (R1) O R D E R(Order of the Court was delivered byElipe Dharma Rao.J.,)The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call forthe records relating to the order of the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal at Chennai passed in O.A.No.1405 of 2001 dated 22.02.2002 andquash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to restore theseniority of the petitioners in the cadre of the Assistant as per theorder of the 1st respondent dated 27.11.2000 issued inNa.Ka.No.131113/97/paa2.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Respondents 2 to 20were originally working in the cadre of Extension Officer/Manger,Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade I in the Rural DevelopmentDepartment at Erode District. The writ petitioners were originallyworking in the cadre of Assistant. After the introduction of SingleService Rule, the persons working under the Ministerial services wereintegrated with the persons working in the Gramasevak service andseniority list was published as on 01.06.1979 based on the guidelinesissued by the Government. In implementation of the single service rule,the writ petitioners were reverted from the post of Assistant to the postof Junior Assistant inasmuch as all of them were promoted temporarilyafter 01.06.1979 as Assistants and as per the feeder category senioritylist, they were not eligible to continue in the cadre of Assistant forwant of vacancy. During 1990, the individuals who are erstwhileGramasevak servants filed O.A.No.1900 of 1990 apprehending reversion forwant of test qualification which was newly prescribed viz., to theerstwhile Gramasevak servants. Both the writ petitioners and respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to 20 were erstwhile ministerial servants for whom test was prescribedfor promotion even prior to the introduction of single service rules. InO.A.No.1900 of 1990, the writ petitioners were figured as Respondents 2 to12, who were impleaded themselves as party respondents. The Tribunal, on17.05.1991, while disposing of the said original application has passed anorder holding that Grama Sevaks and other Rural Welfare Officers whoacquired the test qualification prior to 11.05.1990 need not be revertedand it was further held that promotion given to Grama Sevak etc. prior to12.04.1984 need not be disturbed. The matter went to the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in C.A.No.63-93/94, which extended the time limit to acquire testqualification for Grama Sevak categories till 04.05.1994. By virtue ofthe order passed by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, GramaSevak and others who were not qualified, got an opportunity to continue inthe promoted posts, till they pass the test qualification on or before04.05.1994. Accordingly, the first respondent refixed the seniority.Against the above said refixation of seniority, a representation was sentby the respondents/applicants on 27.12.2000 to restore their seniority andit was not considered. Hence they approached the Tribunal by filingO.A.No.1405 of 2001.2. In the counter affidavit filed in the above original application,it is stated that in G.O.Ms.No.376, Rural Development & LocalAdministration Department, dated 15.03.1978, the Government constituted anofficial committee, comprising of the Secretary, Rural Development andLocal Administration Department, the Director of Rural Development andDeputy Secretary to Government (Personnel) Rural Development and LocalAdministration Department for framing Single Service Rules for all theposts in Panchayat Development Department. In G.O.Ms.No.868, RuralDevelopment and Local Administration Department, dated 30.05.1979, theGovernment ordered that pending formulation of Single Service Rules, allappointments made from 01.06.1979 to till the issue of Single ServiceRules are purely temporary. Accordingly rules were framed byG.O.Ms.Nos.585,586, 587, 588 and 349, Rural Development and LocalAdministration Department, dated 12.04.1984. As per the Single ServiceRules, the Ministerial Service and Grama Sevak Service were merged forsingle ladder promotion. The Grama Sevak Association as well as theindividuals of the Grama Sevak Service filed petitions against the SingleService Rules at High Court, Chennai, which were dismissed by the HighCourt on 28.10.2006. Thereafter action was initiated to implement theabove said rules. As per G.O.Ms.No.325, Rural Development and LocalAdministration Department, dated 26.04.1985, the Government has given 3years period to pass the departmental test to the Grams Sevak Servicepersonnel from 12.04.1984 to 11.04.1987 and informed that during theconcession period, they are entitled for promotion. It is further statedthat the writ petitioners who are respondents 2 to 12 in the originalapplication were promoted as Assistants in the year 1985 and 1986 andthey 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 SingleService Rules in Erode District, 59 qualified Assistants were reverted as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Junior Assistants and 59 unqualified Grama Sevake Grade II were promotedas Assistants/Rural Welfare Officers Grade I as per the inter-se-senioritylist with a condition to pass the Departmental test as per theinstructions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.325, Rural Development and LocalAdministration Department, dated 26.04.1985. But the writ petitioners whoare qualified to hold the post of Assistants (Ministerial ServicePersonnel) were reverted on the ground that they were not promoted as perthe integrated seniority. It is further stated that the period of 3 yearsto pass the test qualification was also extended upto 11.05.1990 to theGrama Sevak Personnel. Out of 59 persons Grama Sevak even though notqualified were promoted and 22 Personnel have not passed the Departmentaltest 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 theTamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order and thematter went upto Supreme Court, which extended the time to pass the testqualification upto 1994. In the meanwhile, as per G.O.(3D) No.41, RuralDevelopment (E4) Department, dated 23.10.1996, and as per the letter ofthe Government dated 14.10.1992 and 11.03.1993, the seniority list ofAssistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade I for the period from 01.06.1979 to1989 has been issued by the District Collector, Erode through hisproceedings dated 10.12.1996 and after considering the request of the writpetitioners, their seniority has been fixed in the year 1986 in the abovelist according to the Single Service Rules and instructions of theGovernment as per District Collector Proceedings dated 27.11.2000, whichis impugned in the present Writ petition. 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the comparative table of the applicants and the writpetitioners/respondents 2 to 12 in the original application, set aside theorder of refixing the seniority of writ petitioners, against which thepresent writ petition has been filed.4. Heard Mr.R.Muthukannu, learned counsel for Ms.K.Dhanalakshmi,learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr.Dhandapani, learnedSpecial Government Pleader for the respondents.5. In the counter affidavit in paragraph 15 and 16, the details of thedate of passing of departmental tests, promotion etc. of the writpetitioners as well as respondents are given, which reads as follows:-"15. At present the respondents 2 to 12 are workingas Assistant/Extension Officers. The date of passing ofdepartmental tests, promotion to Assistant cadre andExtension officer cadre of respondents 2 to 12 are asfollows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.Name of therespondentsJ.A.cadreseniorityDate ofpassing ofDept.testsPromotedasAsst./Date ofJoiningPromotedas Asst.Again/Dateof JoiningE.O. Promotiondate1P.Sengodan48111/855/9/861/8/91--2K.Selvam39411/855/9/86 21/9/901/9/993P.Jayaraman47811/855/9/865/8/91--4P.Tamilselvi4985/8523/12/851/8/91--5K.Banumathi51111/855/9/86 22/7/91--6R.Elango51311/856/9/861/8/91--7K.Kulandaivelu5565/826/9/861/8/91--8M.Panneerselvam3865/853/1/86 20/9/901/3/009V.Manoharan39211/836/6/85 19/9/901/3/0010C.R.Rajammal3265/8523/12/85 30/9/906/9/9911S.Senbagaselvi3855/8510/1/86 20/9/901/9/9916. Details about the applicants regarding dateof passing of departmental tests, promotion toAssistant Cadre and Extension Officer cadre arefurnished as under:- S.No.Name of thePetitioners/ApplicantsJ.A.cadresenio-rityDate ofpassingof Dept.testsPromotedas Asst./Date ofJoiningPromoted asAsst.Again/Dateof JoiningE.O.Promotiondate1P.Shanmugasundaram4775/871/8/9111/9/92..2C.Susila4105/9031/7/91 .. 18/8/20003P.Muruganantham4875/8931/8/92.....4M.Radhamani3995/8721/9/90 27/7/913/11/995C.Jagadambal4715/891/11/91 ...--6R.Padma4745/89 27/7/917/9/92--7R.Natarajan4975/871/8/91 17/10/92--8M.Chellamuthu50111/881/8/91 14/1/93..9S.Murugesan5045/89 14/1/93 ....10S.Maheswari55711/86 25/10/91 ....11M.Venkatachalam4685/87 31/10/91 ....12K.Kaliathal4865/8820/8/92..--13T.Latha47611/8927/7/91 31/8/92.. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12K.Kaliathal4865/8820/8/92..--14S.Manimehalai53611/914/3/94..--15P.M.Radhakrishnan4705/871/11/91..--16P.Shanmugasundaram 4835/8714/8/92 ..--17C.Asokan3955/8721/9/90..1/3/0018R.Muthumeenakshi42611/8514/2/91..1/3/0019A.Selvi4245/8829/7/91 ..1/3/0020K.Mahalingam4115/8927/7/91 ..1/3/006. It is seen from the comparative table that the writ petitionershave already passed the departmental tests between November 1983 and May1985 and were also promoted as Assistants and joined between 23.12.1985and 10.01.1986 and promoted as Assistants again between 19.09.1990 and01.08.1991, whereas respondents 2 to 20 passed the departmental tests onlybetween November 1986 and November 1991 and promoted as Assistants between21.09.1990 and 14.01.1993.7. The writ petitioners have already qualified by passing thequalifying test as early as in 1985 and on considering that they areeligible, they were promoted in the post temporarily. At that point oftime, the respondents/applicants have not qualified and have not passedthe test qualification. Even then, on the ground of integrated seniorityservice rules in both the wings of the said department, the qualifiedpersons were reverted and unqualified Grama Sevaks were promoted givingtime to pass the qualifying test initially for a period of three yearsupto 1987 and thereafter upto 1994. Even from out of 59 persons, 22 werenot qualified. But, the only ground offered for reverting the writpetitioners is that no panel was prepared as per the integrated seniorityservice rules. Therefore, after fixing the seniority, the writpetitioners were not given proper place in the seniority list. As pertheir first promotion as they are already qualified, having passed thetest qualification, the petitioners made a representation, which wasconsidered by the respondent Government and refixed their seniority,against which the respondents 2 to 20 made a complaint, which cannot beentertained since even as per the admitted case of the respondentGovernment, promotions were given to the writ petitioners in the year1985-86, when they are having the required qualification and eligible forpromotion. But, the respondents/applicants who were not qualified, werepromoted by virtue of the introduction of integrated service rules, afterreverting the qualified persons, viz., the petitioners giving anopportunity for the respondents/applicants to acquire the testqualification after a long period of 10 years. Therefore, we are of theview that great injustice has been done to the writ petitioners and theyare made to suffer even though they have acquired the test qualificationprior to the respondents. When the respondents have not acquired the testqualification, they are not entitled to be promoted. But, the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has promoted them, after giving 10 years time to acquire thequalification, which opportunity was also utilised by some of them sinceand then some of them have not acquired the qualification. The writpetitioners who have acquired the test qualification prior to therespondents should not be allowed to suffer at the instance of theunqualified persons. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed bythe District Collector is sustainable in law. Therefore, the reasons givenby the Tribunal in interfering with the order passed by the DistrictCollector in refixing the seniority of the writ petitioners is liable tobe set aside and accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Nocosts.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.rgTo The District Collector,Erode District,Erode.+ 1 CC To Mr. R.Muthukkannu, Advocate SR NO.64255+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 64371W.P.No.40473 of 2002ng[co]gp/13.11.