CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Government of Tamil Nadu

WP 2249/2006 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to includethe names of only those Health Inspectors Grade I, who have passedSanitary Inspectors Course Examination, including the petitioners herein,in the panel for the year 2005-2006 for promotion as Block HealthSupervisor and to desist from including the names of those persons whohave not passed the Sanitary Inspectors' Certificate Course Examination inthe panel for the above post.WP 10807/2006 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the recordspursuant to the impugned panel issued by the 2nd respondent in ProceedingR.No.120561/MP2/SI/2005 dated 12.11.2005 and quash the same andconsequently direct the respondents to prepare a fresh panel including thequalified Health Inspectors for promotion to the post of Block HealthSupervisors and accordingly promote them.WP 17550/2006 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entirerecords relating to G.O.Ms.593 Health & Family Welfare (N2) Departmentdated 11.9.1995 of the second respondent and to quash the same as itrelates to clause "All Multipurpose Health Supervisors as and when theycomplete 20 years of service by upgrading the post they holdautomatically" as null and void and unconstitutional and direct therespondents to implement the G.O. Ms.1507 Health Indian Medicine andHomeopathy and Family Welfare Department, dated 16.8.1989.WP Nos.25608/2006 and 8987 and 8988/2007 filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus to forbear therespondents from drawal of panel for the post of Block Health Supervisorby including the unqualified persons who have been promoted as HealthInspector Grade I on up gradation of post as per G.O.Ms.No.593 Health andFamily Welfare Department dated 11.9.95 contrary to the Public HealthSubordinate Service Rules as well as Adhoc Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1507Health, Indian Medicine, Homeopathy and Family Welfare Department dated16.8.89 and further direct the respondents to draw the panel for the postof Block Health Supervisor with eligible persons having requisitequalification as per the Rules and to effect promotions accordingly.WP.No.8987 and 8988 of 2007 filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus direction in thenature of writ for bearing the respondents from drawal of panel for thepost of Block Health Supervisor by the including the name of theunqualified person who have been promoted to the post of Health InspectorGrade I on upgradation of post as per G.O.Ms.No.593 Health and FamilyWelfare Department dated 11.09.95 contrary to the Tamil Nadu Public HealthSubordinate Service Rules as well as Adhoe Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1507Health Indian Medicines Homeopathy and Family Welfare Department dated16.08.89 and further direct the respondent to draw the panel for the postof Block Health Supervisor with eligible persons having requisitequalification as per the Rules and to effect promotions accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP 9185/2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the 1strespondent in G.O.Ms.No.593, Health and Family Welfare (N2) Department,dated 11.9.1995 and direct the respondent to promote those employees withfull qualification as prescribed under the Rules before absorption ofunqualified hands as Health Inspector Grade I.For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ravi in WP 2249/2006 Mr.S.M.Subramaniam in WP 10807/2006 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Gnanasekar in WP Nos.17550/06 & 9185/07 Mr.Venkatramani Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Vijayan in WP 25608/2006 Mr.R.N.Amarnath in WP 8987 and 8988/2007For Respondents: Mr.G.Sankaran Special Government Pleader for RR1 and 2 in all WPs Mr.R.Muthukannu for RR3 to13 in WP 25608/2006 Mr.N.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan for RR14 to 16 in WP 25608/2006COMMON ORDERThis order shall govern the above writ petitions seven in number.All these writ petitions concentrate on challenging G.O.Ms.No.593 Healthand Family Welfare (N2) Department, dated 11.9.1995, as one contrary tothe Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1507 Health, Indian Medicine, Homeopathy andFamily Welfare Department, dated 16.8.89, and consequentially no furtherpanel could be prepared contrary to the Rules already in existence. 2.The affidavits in support of all the petitions are perused and thecounter affidavit filed by the State is also perused. The Court heard thelearned Counsel on all sides. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The following would emerge as facts admitted:(a) The Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.352, Health andFamily Welfare Department, dated 9.3.1974, categorizing the posts relatingto Health and Family Planning by rationalisation of the posts into fourcategories for facilitating fixation of scale of pay and forimplementation of II Pay Commission. By the said G.O., the post ofLaboratory Assistant (Malaria) was re-designated as Laboratory AttendantGrade III, and the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant (Malaria) was re-designated as Laboratory Attendant Grade II. Following the said G.O., thenext G.O. came to be passed in G.O.Ms.No.110, Health and Family PlanningDepartment, on 19.7.1977, whereby the existing Rules were amended by whichthe feeder category for the post of Health Inspector was amended asLaboratory Attendant Grade II, Laboratory Attendant Grade III and FieldAssistant. In the year 1982, the Health Department issued G.O.Ms.No.1936introducing Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme by which the Basic HealthWorkers and Vaccinators, working in various uni purpose scheme, have beenabsorbed as Multipurpose Health Workers. Though the scheme was introducedin the year 1982, it was implemented with effect from 4.11.1988. Followingthe same, on 16.8.1989, G.O.Ms.No.1507 Health, Indian Medicines,Homeopathy and Family Welfare Department, was issued framing Adhoc Rulesfor Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme which prescribes Sanitary InspectorCourse Certificate or long term Multipurpose Health Workers TrainingCourse Certificate as requisite qualification for appointment to the postof Health Inspector. Subsequently, the Government issued orders inG.O.Ms.No.185 on 5.5.1998, amending the Adhoc Rules framed inG.O.Ms.No.1507 referred to above, by which the post of LaboratoryAssistant (Malaria) was included as one of the feeder category forpromotion to the post of Health Inspector Grade I under MultipurposeHealth Workers Scheme. (b) While the matter stood thus, the impugned G.O. came to be passedin the year 1995 that was on 11.9.1995, in G.O.Ms.No.593, Health andFamily Welfare Department, by which the Multipurpose Health Assistants whohave been absorbed from various uni purpose Scheme, were given promotionas Multipurpose Health Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade I) as and whenthey complete 20 years of service, on up gradation of the postautomatically. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.782, Health and Family WelfareDepartment, dated 20.12.1995 was passed amending the Rules by which thepost of Multipurpose Health Worker was re-designated as Health InspectorGrade II and the post of Multipurpose Health Supervisor was re-designatedas Health Inspector Grade I. On 28.5.2002, the Government issued aclarification letter distinguishing the promotion without qualification onup gradation as per G.O.593 dated 11.9.1995, and regular promotion withqualification for the persons regularly appointed as per the Rules issuedin G.O.Ms.No.1507 dated 16.8.1989. The G.O.Ms.No.154 Health and FamilyWelfare Department, which was made on 11.3.2004, would stipulate thatBlock Extension Educator who got merged with the Multipurpose HealthWorkers Scheme, can be promoted as Block Health Supervisor only if theypossess requisite qualification for the post of Sanitary Inspector namelySanitary Inspector Course Certificate. Under the circumstances, G.O.593and the amended Rules thereon came to be challenged first before theTamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in the year 1995 itself which cases havebeen subsequently transferred to this Court and taken on file as writpetitions along with the other writ petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.As could be seen, all the writ petitions mainly concentrate inattacking the G.O.Ms.No.593 as one bad and invalid since it has beenissued only on the administrative instructions and they could notsupersede or supplant the original G.O. by which the Multipurpose HealthWorkers Scheme has been brought into force. Apart from that, the panelissued by the second respondent for the year 2005-2006 for promotion asBlock Health Supervisor is also challenged. 5.Inter alia, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners,would submit that the Government has passed the impugned G.O.593 by whichthe Multipurpose Health Assistants have been absorbed from various unipurpose Scheme, and they were given promotion as Multipurpose HealthSupervisors (Health Inspector Grade I) if they complete 20 years ofservice by upgrading the post they held automatically; that from the veryreading of the order, it would be quite clear that the unqualifiedMultipurpose Health Assistants who have completed 20 years of service,were given promotion as Health Inspector Grade I on up gradation of thepost; that the said order came to be passed taking into consideration thefact that the Basic Health Workers, Vaccinators and Cholera Workers werein the category of Multipurpose Health Assistant, who could not getpromotion for several years as the post of Multipurpose Health Supervisorwas reduced in number due to the population ratio; and that under thecircumstances, the post of Multipurpose Health Worker itself was upgradedas Multipurpose Health Supervisor as a measure of concession on the groundof sympathy and even without considering the fact that they were nothaving requisite qualification to hold the post of Multipurpose HealthSupervisor (Health Inspector Grade I). 6.The learned Counsel would further submit that the order came to bepassed on the ground of sympathy as one time measurement by upgrading thepost itself meaning thereby that they should be allowed to work in thepost till their retirement; that in the order, it is stated that personswho have crossed 50 years of age without getting promotion, were promotedon up gradation even without requisite qualification as per the Rules, andthus, it would be quite clear that the persons who were not possessingSanitary Inspector Course Certificate, were given promotion asMultipurpose Health Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade I); that further,they would add that the persons who were upgraded as Health InspectorGrade I as per the impugned G.O., have been allowed to work at Health SubCentre Level; and that since they have been given promotion on upgradation of the post without qualification and further they were givenequal salary in the promoted post, though they are allowed to work in theSub Centre Level, it became necessary to challenge the G.O.Ms.No.593.7.The learned Counsel would further add that the persons who have nowbeen given promotion pursuant to the G.O.593, should not be allowed toclaim any further promotion for want of qualification; that it has beenmade clear by the Government by a letter dated 28.5.2002, that thepromotion by way of up gradation as referred in G.O.593, was applicableonly to the absorbed unipurpose Helth Assistant as Multipurpose HealthAssistant; that it is not applicable to directly recruited MultipurposeHealth Assistants appointed as per Adhoc Rules issued in 1989, and hence,it would be quite clear that the up gradation of the post as per G.O.593 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been categorized as single unit without being merged with regularlyappointed Multipurpose Health Assistant/Health Inspector Grade II withrequisite qualification as per Adhoc Rules. 8.It is the further contention of the learned Counsel that theeducational qualification and other qualification as prescribed by theRules, should strictly be followed in respect of the persons appointed asper the Rules; that all these would make it clear that the up gradation ofthe post as per G.O.593 cannot be equated with the regularly appointedpersons who have been promoted as per the Rules; that as per the amendedRules, it is clear that the Laboratory Assistants (Malaria) are entitledto be promoted to the post of the Health Inspector Grade I, only if theypossess Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate; that under thecircumstances, for promotion to the post of Health Inspector Grade I, therequisite qualification as prescribed in the Rules, should be strictlyfollowed without any deviation; that now, all the attempts are being madefor making further promotion from the post of Health Inspector Grade I tothe post of Block Health Supervisor; that once it is sympatheticallyconsidered and promotion has been given, the same sympathy should notcontinue; that if allowed, the rights of the persons who are entitled tohave the regular promotion and who are having the requisite qualification,would be jeopardized; that under the circumstances, it should not beallowed to supersede, and hence, it became necessary to challenge theimpugned G.O.9.The learned Counsel would further add that in the instant case, thesecond respondent is taking all steps for preparation of a panel for 2005-2006 for promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor from the post ofHealth Inspector Grade I, in which the persons who have been upgradedalong with the post without requisite qualification as per the impugnedG.O., have been included; that if the same is allowed to go, thepetitioners and others who are all waiting for the chance and who arehaving requisite qualification, will lose their chance, and their rightswould also be jeopardized; that there are qualified persons who have beenregularly promoted like the petitioners, are longing for further promotionto the post of Block Health Supervisor as per the Rules; that the firstpart of the G.O.593 which is actually based on the administrativeinstructions, cannot supersede all the earlier Rules which have come intoexistence in 1989 itself and amended Rules thereafter, under Article 309of the Constitution; that in such circumstances, it cannot supersede orsupplant the original G.O.; that it is also clear from the Counter filedby the State before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal that only therequest of the Association was considered, and it was sympatheticallydone, and they have been given promotion as Health Inspector Grade I; thatthis would clearly indicate that it is not the recognition of the rightsof those persons, who did not have the requisite qualification; that onlyon the ground of sympathy, their promotion was given; that this sympathyshould not be continued so as to allow them to march forward to get intothe post of the Block Health Supervisor, and under the circumstances, theG.O. has got to be struck down, and the panel to be prepared, berestrained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Counsel appearingfor the respondents 3 to 16 in WP 25608/2006, in support of the G.O. andthe amended Rules thereon and also the preparation of the panel which isunder challenge, would contend that the State was perfectly correct inpassing the G.O.; that from the impugned G.O., it would be quite evidentthat it would be in furtherance of the original G.O. Passed; that evidencecould be traced in that regard; that it could be well seen that it is madeunder Article 309 of the Constitution; that at no stretch of imagination,it could be considered as administrative instructions; that in order tocoordinate, streamline and channelize the duties and functions of thestaff in the Public Health Department as to be purposeful and useful topublic, in 1988 all persons who have been appointed and inducted as BasicHealth Workers, Vaccinators and Cholera Workers, have been designated intoone category and cadre as Multipurpose Health Assistant in which categoryall these respondents were absorbed and they have been continuing theirwork as such; that all have been given promotion from 1995 as HealthInspector Grade I; that once the promotion has been given from 1995 andthe persons like these respondents have got vested right, the same cannotnow be challenged; that now the challenge is made after a period from 1995to 2007; that hundreds of persons have actually been promoted and hundredshave actually retired and have got pensionary benefits; that if this G.O.is to be struck down, as put forth by the petitioners' side, it would benothing but invasion of the vested rights of these respondents; that thesame cannot be done since number of persons were promoted, and they alsoretired; that apart from that, it is not correct on the part of thepetitioners to state that they are not qualified; that according to thepetitioners, the only requirement was the possession of Sanitary InspectorCourse Certificate; that it is pertinent to point out that theserespondents and the persons alike them have been in the field for numberof decades; that they have acquired vast experience; that the same shouldhave been considered by the Government; that the Sanitary Inspector CourseExamination was stopped from 1983, and under the circumstances, they couldnot undergo the course and obtain the certificate; that these respondentshave actually been promoted from Grade II to Grade I from 1995 onwards andit was in recognition of their service in the field work. 11.Added further the learned Counsel that at no stretch ofimagination, the petitioners can say that they are disqualified; thatmerely because the petitioners have got a certificate by undergoing thecourse, it cannot be stated that they are better placed; but, theinspection of their Service Records would clearly indicate that many ofthem did not have the full service or experience; that under thecircumstances, it was to be recognised; that accordingly, the Governmentin recognition of the same have done so; that it is farce to state thatthe G.O. came to be passed sympathetically; but, it was only inrecognition of their service and experience; that under the circumstances,once they have been promoted as Health Inspectors Grade I, they are to beequated to others; that the petitioners are desirous of getting theirpromotion by seniority; that the persons who are equally placed along withthese respondents, are also to be promoted as Block Health Supervisors;that there cannot be any legal impediment in making so, and under thecircumstances, the petitions do not carry any merit, and they are liableto be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.The Court heard the learned Special Government Pleader for theState on the above contentions. He made his sincere attempt in supportingthe G.O. and the amendment made thereon, and also the panel to be preparedas one in accordance with law and would submit that the petitions are tobe dismissed.13.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.14.As could be seen above, the petitioners have challenged theG.O.Ms.No.593, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 11.9.1995.Originally, in 1982, a Scheme called Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme,was introduced. But, it was given implementation with effect from4.11.1988. The Adhoc Rules were also framed in G.O.Ms.No.1507 on16.8.1989. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that either theG.O.1936 introducing the Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme whereby theBasic Health Workers and Vaccinators working in various uni purposescheme, were absorbed as Multipurpose Health Workers, or the subsequentG.O.185 whereby the Adhoc Rules issued in G.O.1507, were amended by whichthe post of Laboratory Assistant (Malaria) was included as one of thefeeder category for promotion to the post of Health Inspector Grade I, isnot challenged before this Court. By the introduction of the MultipurposeHealth Workers Scheme and by the amendment of the Rules, now the personswho are all the respondents 3 to 16 in WP No.25608 of 2006, have beenabsorbed into the regular scheme, and they have been given promotion. Assuch the promotion commenced in the year 1995 pursuant to which they havebeen made as Health Inspector Grade I. Now, the challenge is made to theG.O.593 by which the post of Multipurpose Health Supervisors who are theHealth Inspectors Grade I, is given to the persons, if they complete 20years of service, on up gradation of the post automatically, and thus, thesaid respondents have been promoted. Following the same, the amendmentRules have also been made in December 1995. As on today, it cannot bedisputed that by the application of the G.O.593, hundreds of persons likethe above respondents 3 to 16, were promoted and they have been working.That apart, hundreds of persons have actually retired. 15.The first contention put forth by the petitioners' side that thosepersons do not have the requisite qualification, and as a measure ofconcession only and on the ground of sympathy, they were given promotion,has got to be considered. Even from the counter filed by the State, itcould be seen that as a measure of concession and on the ground ofsympathy and also in order to remove the stagnation of promotion forseveral years, it was considered. Though the words used are sympathy andmeasure of concession, it cannot be forgotten that the fact that theabove respondents 3 to 16 have been in service for decades, should havebeen taken into consideration by the Government. Now, at this juncture,it is to be pointed out that this concession would not have been given, orthe sympathy would not have been shown if their services for number ofdecades and experience in the field were not taken into account. In suchcircumstances, it cannot be stated that the sympathy was one misplaced, orthe concession should not have been given at that time. Needless to saythat in view of the stagnation of promotion of these persons for decadesand also in order to remove the stagnation, taking into considerationtheir experience in the field for more than a decade, the State thought itfit to pass G.O.593 whereby it has given the measure. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.The other contention that they did not have requisitequalification and hence, they should not have been given promotion cannotbe accepted at this stage for the simple reason that the G.O. came to bepassed in the year 1995, which is also an admitted position. Though itwas challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and number ofwrit petitions have been filed before this Court, pending the same,hundreds of persons have actually been promoted from Grade II to Grade I,and hundreds have actually retired, and they got pensionary benefits also.Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion thatthere is no meaning in contending that the G.O.593, though it has been inexistence for more than a decade, and benefits have already been accrued,and they have been enjoying the benefits of the same, has got to be setaside. This Court is unable to agree with the said contention put forth bythe petitioners' side.17.The next contention put forth by the petitioners' side is that itis only on the administrative instructions; that it is not in exercise ofthe powers under Article 309 of the Constitution; and that it isinconsistent to the original G.O. in 1989 and the amended Rules wherein itis clearly referred as in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of theConstitution; but, it is not so in the case of G.O.593. It is true; but,it does not mean that following the original G.O., the impugned G.O. cameto be passed. Hence, it is not a question of supplanting or supersedingthe same; but, it is only a measure given. It can be well stated that itis supplemental in character. Further, the G.O.593 has given relaxationwhich, in the opinion of this Court, cannot in any way be unreasonable orinconsistent to the original G.O. Under the circumstances, thatcontention cannot be countenanced at all.18.As could be seen, the entire case of the petitioners was that theabove respondents 3 to 16 are not qualified since they do not have theSanitary Inspector Course Certificate. Except this, this Court is unableto notice anything in the entire case. What are all urged is that theydid not undergo the said course, and the Sanitary Inspector CourseCertificate has not been issued to them. Originally, by the G.O. of 1989and the subsequent G.O. Of 1992, it was made a necessity that they shouldhave the certificate; but the Government have taken into considerationtheir experience in the field and have decided to give a measure ofconcession, and accordingly, it is given. Now, at this juncture, as faras the first part of the G.O. to be struck down, according to thepetitioners, is concerned, this Court is unable to agree with the case ofthe petitioners. 19.As regards the preparation of the panel is concerned, this Courtis able to see sufficient force in the contention put forth by thepetitioners' side. When the original applications came to be filed beforethe Tribunal, the State filed a reply affidavit which reads as follows:"The Basic Health Workers Association represented that thoughthey have completed 25 years of service and crossed 50 years ofage they could not get promotion as they do not possess SanitaryInspector Course qualification and due to excess cadre strengthof Multipurpose Health Supervisor. Considering their request https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sympathetically the Government have issued orders inG.O.Ms.No.593, Health, dated 11.9.95 to promote all MultipurposeHealth Assistants who have completed 20 years of service asHealth Inspector Grade I."20.From the reading of the above reply given, it would be quite clearthat there were requests made by them, and the persons who made requests,did not have the Sanitary Inspector Course qualification; but, they havebeen working for more than 25 years, and hence, it was to be considered.Taking into consideration the request of the said Association coupled withthe fact of stagnation of promotion for decades, the State have givenpromotion to them as a concessional measure at that stage. Even from thereading of the G.O. under challenge and also the counter filed by theState referred to above, it would be abundantly clear that the respondents3 to 16 who were given promotion pursuant to G.O.593, and the personsalike them were promoted by way of concession and not in recognition oftheir rights, but to remove the stagnation of promotion, though they didnot have the necessary certificates or the qualification. On thecontrary, the persons who are before this Court namely the petitionersherein, have got necessary certificates for promotion to the post of BlockHealth Supervisor. Under the circumstances, the persons who did not haveproper qualification as one contemplated in the G.O. of 1989, though theywere given promotion as above, cannot be allowed to equate themselves withthe persons like the petitioners herein, for getting further promotion. 21.Now, at this juncture, it would be more apt and appropriate topoint out that the clarification was issued by the State by a letter dated28.5.2002, distinguishing the promotion without qualification on upgradation as per G.O.593 and regular promotion with qualification for thepersons regularly appointed as per the Rules issued in G.O.1507 of theyear 1989, and hence, the persons promoted on up gradation as per G.O.593cannot be merged with the regularly promoted persons as per the Rules.Even though there was a promotion given to the persons alike therespondents 3 to 16 as per G.O.593 of the year 1995, the Government madeit clear by the said clarification letter distinguishing both thecategories, and thus, it would be quite clear that the persons alike therespondents 3 to 16 who do not have the certificates, cannot come forwardto compare with the petitioners who have got necessary qualification, inthe guise of G.O.593 so as to have further promotion to the post of BlockHealth Supervisor. Under the circumstances, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the respondents 3 to 16 and the persons placedalike, cannot be allowed to take advantage of one time concessionalbenefit given to them pursuant to G.O.593, to ask further promotion to thepost of Block Health Supervisors, equating themselves with those who havegot the requisite qualification by holding necessary certificates. But,the respondents 3 to 16 and persons alike them can be allowed to continuein the present post, but cannot be considered for further promotion to thepost of Block Health Supervisors.22.As regards the G.O.Ms.No.593, for the reasons stated above, thisCourt is unable to see any reason to strike it down. But, at the sametime, on the strength of the said G.O., the State cannot be allowed toprepare a panel including the respondents 3 to 16 or persons alike them, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor. Accordingly, theState is restrained from preparing such a panel. However, it is madeclear that such a panel if prepared, should not be given effect.Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected WPMPs and MPs are closed.21.11.2007These Petitions having been set down on this day 20.12.2007 for beingmentioned pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.11.2007 and madeherein in presence of aforesaid Advocates on either side the Court madethe following order:-These matters are posted today for "Being mentioned" at the instanceof the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents brought tothe notice of this Court that on an earlier occasion, when the order waspassed on merits on 21.11.2007 in W.P.Nos.2249, 10807, 17550 and 25608 of2006 and 8987, 8988 and 9185 of 2007, in paragraph 22, instead of statingthat the State cannot be allowed to prepare a panel including therespondents 3 to 15 or persons alike them for promotion to the post ofBlock Health Supervisor, it is stated that since the 16th respondent inW.P.No.25608 of 2006 by name A.C. Rajasekaran has already been qualified,naturally his name be included in the panel and hence the name of the 16threspondent has to be deleted in the aforesaid paragraph.3. Accordingly, paragraph 22 of the order dated 21.11.2007 ismodified to the following effect:"22. As regards the G.O.Ms.No.593, for the reasons stated above,this Court is unable to see any reason to strike it down. But, at thesame time, on the strength of the said G.O.the State cannot be allowed toprepare a panel including the respondents 3 to 15 or persons alike them,for promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor. Accordingly, theState is restrained from preparing such a panel. However, it is madeclear that such a panel if prepared, should not be given effect.Accordingly all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected WPMPs and Mps are closed."Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1.The Secretary to Government Health and Family WelfareDepartment Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of Public Healthand Preventive Medicine DMS Compound Chennai 600 006.3. The Deputy Director of Health Services,Dindigul.1 cc To M/s.M.Ravi, Advocate, SR.69178.2 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.69110 and 69108.1 cc To Mr.S.M.Subramanian, Advocate, SR.68896.1 cc To Mr.R.Muthukannu, Advocate, SR.68780.2 cc To M/s.R.N.Amarnath, Advocate, SR.69344.1 cc To M/s.N.Gnanasekar, Advocate, SR.68959.1 cc to Mr.R. Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate, Sr. 75959WP Nos.2249, 10807, 17550 and 25608/2006 and8987, 8988 and 9185/2007AKR(CO)RVL 23.11.2007kk 3/121.11.2007/ 20.12.2007