C.P. RavichandranS/o.C.P. Ramachandran v. P. Rajan & Ors.

Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionfor the issuance of Writ of Certiorari relating to the order passedby the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.443 of 1999,dated 9.12.2003 and quash the same. (W.P.12751 of 2004, 19859 to19862/04,)calling for the records to the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.473dated 2.4.2007 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quashthe same. (W.P.16388 of 2007)Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for theissuance of Writ of Certiorari relating to the order passed by theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4155 of 1999, dated9.12.2003 and quash the same. (W.P.NO.21204/07)Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2ndrespondent i.e, proc.No.A1/42200/2006 00 No.191/2006 dated09.10.2006 annexure Part-II Revised seniority List of ScientificAssistants Grade I and Proc.No.A1/42200/2006 00 No.194/2006, dated25.10.2006 Annexure Part-III Revised Seniority List of ScientificAssistants Grade - I and quash the same with a consequentialdirection to fix the seniority taking into account the date ofappointment and date of completion of probation as the basis forInter-Se-Seniority between the petitioner and the Respondents 3 to21 herein in the Department (W.P.No.44369/06) Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate, writ, call for therecords on the file of the respondents 1 and 3 in their proceedingsG.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.99 and also Proc A1/5772/95,O.O. No.77/95dated 23.6.95 respectively and quash the same to the extent ofplacement of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 10 revise theseniority and to redraw the panel placing the applicant over andabove the respondents 4 to 10 with all monetary and servicebenefits. (W.P.42318/06) Petition presented to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of Respondents herein with regard to the Impugned G.O.(MS) No.473 Home (Police 18) Department) Dt.2.4.2007 issued by the1st Respondent herein based on the 3rd Respondents proceedings ofthe Director - Proc.No.A1/42200/2006 - 0.0.No.190/06 Dt.9.10.2006and Proc.No.A1/42200/2006 - 0.0 No.191/06 Dt.9.10.2006 andProc.No.A1.42200/2006 - 0.0.No.194/06 Dt.25.10.2006 and quash thesame with the consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3herein to fix the interse seniority among the persons working inthe Tamilnadu Forensic Science Services on the basis of date oftheir entry into service, completion of probation andregularisation in the feeder category of scientific Assistant Grade- II in the Tamilnadu Forensic Sciences Department (W.P.33893/2007) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition presented to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the 3rd respondent herein with regard to theimpugned promotional order issued by the 3rd respondent vide theirproceedings (the Director/I/C/ Forensic Sciences Department madein No. A1/41364/2007/O.O No. 184/2007 dated 5.11.2007 which isbased on the G.O.R1 NO. 2409 Home (police 18) Department dt.02.11.2007 issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the samein so far as the respondents 4 to 8 with the consequentialdirection to the 3rd respondent herein to promote the petitioner asAssistant Director in the Tamiladu Forensic Department per theOriginal panel seniority lists of scientific officers as arrived bythe G.O Ms.1224 dated 07.09.99 (W.P.36679 of 2007) Petitions presented to issue writ of certiorari or any otherwrit order or direction in the nature of writ calling for therecords relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 425, Home (Police 18) Department dated 5.4.2008 and theconsequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.A1/36036/2008, O.O. No. 37/2008 dated 8.4.2008 and quash the same.(W.P.8955 to 8965 of 2008 and W.P.9224 and 9225/08)For Petitioner: Mr.C.V. Vijayakumarin W.P.Nos.12751,19859 to 19862/04,44369/06, 33893,36679 of 2007For Petitioner in WP.16388/2007: Mr.M. GovindarajRespondents 3 to 6 inWP.Nos.8955 to 8965/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner in WPs.8955 to 8965,: Mr.T.S. Sivagnanam9224 & 9225/2008For Petitioner : Mr.C. Selvarajin WP.21204/2007 Senior Counsel for Mr.S. ManiFor Petitioner in WP.42318/2006: Mr.R. SingaravelanFor Respondent-State: Mr.M. Dhandapani Special Govt. PleaderFor Respondent-4in W.P.No.19859/04For Respondent-14in WP.16388/2007: Mr.L. ChandrakumarFor Respondents 13,14,16 & 19 in WP.44369/06For Respondent-8 in WP.44369/2006: Ms. Narmadha SampathFor Respondents 3,4,5 and 10: Mr.S.S. Vasudevan in WP.44369/2006For Respondent-1 inWP.No.21204/2007: M/s.G. RamapriyaCOMMON JUDGMENTP.K. MISRA, JThe seemingly never ending controversy revolving roundthe question of inter se seniority in the Forensic ScienceDepartment is the subject matter of all these writ petitions.2. The background facts are as follows :-It appears that during 1959, the Chemical Examiners Laboratoryunder the control of Medical Department and the Excise Laboratoryunder the control of Board of Revenue and the Forensic ScienceLaboratory under the control of Police Department are stated as“State Forensic Science Laboratory” and governed by the SpecialRules issued in G.O.Ms.No.912, Home Department, dated 28.3.1964 forMadras State Forensic Science Subordinate Service. Subsequently,in 1967, the State Forensic Science Laboratory was bifurcated to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chemical Examiners Laboratory functioning independently withSpecial Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1611 dated 16.6.1971 and State ForensicScience Laboratory functioning under the Police Department withSpecial Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1306 dated 14.5.1971. By G.O.Ms.No.33,Home Department, dated 4.1.1971, State Forensic Science Laboratorywas bifurcated as Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory under thecontrol of Police Department and Tamil Nadu Prohibition & ExciseLaboratory under the control of Board of Revenue. Subsequently, in1973, there was a merger of Chemical Examiners Laboratory and TamilNadu Forensic Science Laboratory, which became known as “Tamil NaduForensic Science Laboratory”. During 1980, there was a furthermerger of The Prohibition & Excise Laboratory under the control ofBoard of Revenue and Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory underthe control of Police Department and continued to be known as TamilNadu Forensic Science Laboratory. In 1984, this integrated unitwas renamed as Forensic Sciences Department. The Government bG.O.Ms.No.2790, Home Department, dated 3.10.1986, issued SpecialRules for Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Subordinate Service. In theinterregnum, the Government had sanctioned number of poststemporarily in various cadres and number of recruitments in thefeeder category of Scientific Assistant Grade II were made withoutany specific service rules. Simultaneously, Scientific AssistantGrade II already working in the Forensic Science Laboratory hadalso been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I. However,promotions had been given by following the approved list at thetime of recruitment in the feeder category and also following therule of reservation. Till November, 1982, almost the entire staffworking in the Department was on temporary basis. The Governmenthad issued a set of directions to regularise such temporary serviceretrospectively vide Government Letter No.48038/FS/82-6, HomeDepartment, dated 2.11.1982. and accordingly temporary staff hadbeen regularised. Draft inter se seniority for all the staff waspublished by Director's Memo No.A1/18652/86 dated 26.2.1987 and allthe persons were invited to file their representations. Afterreceipt of such representations, a revised seniority list waspublished on 3.11.1987 as per Director's Proceedings No.A1/18491/87dated 3.11.1987. During 1993, there was some problem in groupingvarious divisions in the Department with different subjects such asPhysics, Chemistry and Biology and large number of representationshave been made. The Government through D.O. Lr.No.22429/Pol/93-1Home (Pol-16) Department dated 30.4.1993, suggested the Director toform a Committee under the Chairmanship of the then Deputy Directorto “study the practical difficulties experienced by the staff withpresent system of grouping of Divisions in the Forensic SciencesDepartment and also some lacunae in the Service Rules”.Accordingly, a Committee was formed as per Director's MemorandumNo.A1/6732/93 dated 21.6.1993. Thereafter, the Director issuedMemorandum No.A1/6732/93 dated 25.6.1993, wherein revision ofseniority was also included as one of the subjects and based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such subsequent circular, the Chairman of the Committee sent noticeto all the staff to send representation regarding grievance in theseniority. On the basis of the recommendation made by suchCommittee, the then Director issued a fresh seniority list as perOffice Order No.77/95 dated 23.6.1995, wherein objections /representations were invited within a stipulated period. At suchstage, representations had been made by several persons. In suchseniority list, instead of taking the date of joining of ScientificAssistant Grade I as the relevant starting point of seniority,seniority in the feeder category,namely, Scientific Assistant GradeII, has been taken as the base. While such representations werestill pending and matter had not been finalised, the Directorissued a panel of promotion to the post of Scientific Officer inG.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999. This G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated4.1.1999 became the starting point of the present set oflitigations. 2.1 One P. Rajan filed O.A.No.443 of 1999 before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “theTribunal”) for quashing G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8, dated 4.1.1999, so far asRespondents 3 to 9 in such applications were concerned and toextend all benefits, service and monetary, by according appropriateplacement over and above the Respondents 3 to 9 with effect from13.7.1983 as Scientific Assistant Grade I and other benefits ofpromotion. One A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, filed O.A.No.4155 of 1999against R. Bhanumathy, M. Karpagam, S. Geethalkakshmi, K.V.K.Radhamani, M. Radhika, G. Lakshmi, V. Karpagam, M. Gomathi, V.T.Vimali, M.S. Hameetha Begam and P. Kirubakaran, Respondents 3 to 13therein, for quashing the Proceedings issued the Director inPro.No.A1/5772/95, dated 23.6.1995 and the Government LetterNo.23203/Pol.XVI/99-2, dated 8.6.1999 and to promote him to thepost of Scientific Officer with effect from the date when hisimmediate junior was promoted and above the Respondents 3 to 13therein. H. Balashanmugham filed O.A.No.6831 of 1999 claimingsimilar relief. M. Udayakumar filed O.A.Nos.304 of 2001 and 2558of 2003 and C. Ravindran filed O.A.Nos.326 of 2001 and 2557 of2003. O.A.Nos.304 & 326 of 2001 had been filed challengingG.O.Ms.No.7 and 8, dated 4.1.1999, whereas O.A.Nos.2557 and 2558 of2003 had been filed challenging the reversion of seniority made in2002. The Tribunal by common order dated 9.12.2003, allowed allsuch Original Applications and quashed the impugned GovernmentOrders and the seniority list and directed the Government to fixthe seniority of the applicant by taking into account the date ofappointment as Scientific Assistant Grade I. It was furtherdirected that if any of the juniors of the applicant had beenpromoted as Scientific Officer, the applicant should be promotedfrom the date on which his juniors were promoted.2.2 C.P. Ravichandran, Respondent No.3 in O.A.No.443 of 1999,has filed W.P.No.12751 of 2004 and an order of interim stay was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed on 30.4.2004, which was made absolute on 13.9.2004 inWPMP.No.14854 of 2004 in WP.No.12751 of 2004.2.3 P. Subbulakshmi, Respondent No.4 in such O.A.No.443 of1999, has filed W.P.No.19859 of 2004.M. Karpagam, Respondent No.9 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, hasfiled W.P.No.19860 of 2004.K. Hemavathy, Respondent No.5 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, hasfiled W.P.No.19861 of 2004.R. Banumathi, Respondent No.6 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, hasfiled W.P.No.19862 of 2004.The other respondents, namely, E. Ezhilarasi and K.P.Devarajan, apparently have not filed any writ petition challengingthe order passed in O.A.No.443 of 1999.M. Karpagam, G. Lakshmi and V.T. Vimali, who were RespondentNos.4, 8 and 11 in O.A.No.4155 of 1999 filed by A. Viswa MonnaMohammed, have filed W.P.Nos.21204 of 2007 against the very sameorder pertaining to O.A.No.4155 of 1999.3. O.A.No.2336 of 1999, had been filed by Mr.P.Ettiyappan before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal forquashing G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.1999 and also theProc.No.A1/5772/95, O.O.No.77/95 dated 23.6.1995 with a prayer toredraw the panel and also to revise the seniority list claimingseniority over Respondents 4 to 10 in such O.A. Such OriginalApplication, on abolition of the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal, has come to the High Court on transfer and has beenrenumbered as W.P.No.42318 of 2006. In such Original Applicationconverted as Writ Petition, C.P. Ravichandran, P. Subbalakshmi, K.Hemavathi, Ezhilarasi, R. Bhanumathi, K.P. Devarajan and K.Karpagam are respectively the Respondents 4 to 10. Notice is notready regarding Respondent No.6, namely, K. Hemavathi andRespondent No.9, namely, K.P. Devarajan. However, these personshave been represented through their counsels in other connectedmatters. Such petitioner has also filed W.P.No.8956 of 2008, whichshall be noticed a little later. In the Original Application, thebasic grievance is regarding the seniority list dated 23.6.1995 bycontending that earlier seniority list dated 3.11.1987 had not beenchallenged. Similarly it is contended that the panel was preparedon the basis of wrong seniority. It has been claimed that as amatter of fact he had been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade Iahead of the respondents in the writ petition mainly because suchrespondents had declined to go on promotion to the place outsidethe Chennai and preferred to continue as Scientific Assistant GradeII. It has been also indicated that against revision of senioritylist dated 23.6.1995, representations had been made by him on17.7.1995 and 26.8.1996, which were yet to be considered by thefiling of the O.A., and yet the persons junior to him have beenincluded in the panel. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. After disposal of such O.A.No.443 of 1999 and otherconnected matters, the Government had also directed the Director toform a Committee to study the problems relating to seniority.Accordingly, the Committee headed by the Deputy Director went intothe matter and on that basis as per Director's ProceedingsNo.A1/42200/2006, Office Order No.194/2006 dated 25.10.2006,seniority list had been prepared. This has been subsequentlyapproved by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.473, Home Department,dated 2.4.2007 has been issued. 5. C.P. Ravichandran has filed W.P.No.44369 of 2006 bychallenging the seniority list dated 25.10.2006. The very samepetitioner has also filed W.P.No.16388 of 2007 againstG.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007. One Murali Krishnan, who was not aparty to O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.33893 of 2007challenging G.O.Ms.No.473 Home (Police 18) Department, dated23.4.2007, issued by the Government on the basis of the Proceedingsof the Director, Forensic Sciences Department, dated 9.10.2006 and25.10.2006 and for a consequential direction to fix the inter seseniority among the persons working in the Tamil Nadu ForensicScience Services on the basis of date of their entry into service,completion of probation and regularisation in the feeder categoryof Scientific Assistant Grade II. During pendency of all thesewrit petitions, certain persons were promoted as AssistantDirectors making it clear that such promotion was subject to resultof W.P.No.16388 of 2007. Muralikrishna had also filedW.P.No.36679 of 2007 challenging promotional order issued by theDirector in Proceedings No.A1/41364/2007/O.O.No.184/2007 dated5.11.2007, based on G.O.Rt.No.2409 Home (Pol.18) Department, dated2.11.2007 so far as the Respondents 4 to 8 therein with aconsequential direction to promote him as Assistant Director as perthe original panel of seniority list of Scientific Officers arrivedby G.O.Ms.No.1224 dated 7.9.1999. However, since subsequentlyContempt Applications were filed, the Government issuedG.O.Ms.No.425 Home (Police 18) Department, dated 5.4.2008 and theDirector issued Office Order No.37/2008 dated 8.4.2008 revertingsuch persons from the post of Assistant Director to the former postof Scientific Officer. Mrs.S. Vijaya, Mr.P. Ettiyappan, Mr.P.Ravishankar, Mr.V. Mohan, Mr.K.P. Devarajan, Mrs.R. Vasantha,Mr.A.R. Mohan, Mrs. Kamalakshi Krishnamoorthy, Mr.V.Kanagasabapathy, Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy and Mr.N. Kalimuthan havefiled W.P.Nos.8955 to 8965 of 2008 respectively challenging theorder of reversion reverting them from the post of AssistantDirector to Scientific Officer, wherein an order of interim stayhad been passed thus staying the order of reversion. C.P.Ravichandran, K. Hemavathy, R. Banumathy, who are the petitionersin W.P.Nos.12751, 19861 and 19862 of 2004 respectively have gotthemselves impleaded as Respondents 3 to 6 and similarly one V. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Geethalakshmi, who apparently has not filed any writ petitionagainst the order relating to O.A.No.443 of 1999, had got herselfimpleaded as Respondent No.6. Subsequently, Mrs.V.K. Selvarani andMr.R. Neelakanda Pillai have filed W.P.Nos.9224 and 9225 of 2008against the very same reversion order.6. In this latter group of writ petitions the submissionis to the effect that W.P.No.12751 of 2004 was pending before theHigh Court and, therefore, it was inappropriate, unjust and illegalto issue any order of reversion, even though the matter ofseniority had not yet been finalised. It is to be noticed thatapproval of the panel for positing such petitioners as AssistantDirectors was made as per G.O.Ms.No.1503 dated 24.10.2007,whereunder it is clearly mentioned that the panel is approvedsubject to outcome of W.P.No.16388 of 2007 filed by C.P.Ravichandran against the seniority list of Scientific Officersapproved in G.O.Ms.No.473, Home Department dated 2.4.2007. It isthus obvious that the fate of these writ petitions is interlinkedwith the question of seniority as projected in W.P.Nos.12751/2004,16388 and 33893/2007.7. The stand of the Respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.Nos.8955 to8965 of 2008 is reflected in the petition filed for vacating thestay in W.P.No.8955 of 2008. In such affidavit, it is stated thatthe person concerned was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade IIahead of the writ petitioner in this group of cases and suchpersons had been temporarily promoted as Scientific Assistant GradeI under fortuitous circumstances. In the seniority list dated3.11.1987, many juniors, who had been made Scientific AssistantGrade I under fortuitous circumstances had been ranked above theemployees like Respondents 3 to 6. The rule of relinquishment wasclarified only by G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 15.3.1988 and, therefore,those who had temporarily relinquished or temporarily promoted andreverted before issuance of such G.O., on 15.3.1988, could not bepenalised and similarly those who had been temporarily promoted dehors the rules under fortuitous circumstances could not beconsidered as seniors in Scientific Assistant Grade I. On5.2.1992, a fresh regularisation order has been issued to those whohad been appointed before 3.10.1986 in consultation with Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission. The fresh seniority list was issued on23.6.1995 in respect of those appointed and promoted before3.10.1986, which had not been challenged by any of the writpetitioners and had become final. Subsequently, a seniority listwas issued for Scientific Assistant Grade I on 12.1.1999, whichreflected the correct position. Before that G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated4.1.1999 had been issued containing the panel for promotion for theyear 1996-1997 and 1997-98, wherein the writ petitioners had notbeen included. In O.A.No.443 of 1999 filed by Mr. Rajan and inother O.As., the seniority list dated 23.6.1995 was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ specifically challenged and the Tribunal had granted relief inthose matters beyond the scope of such Original Applications andsuch orders have been challenged by various aggrieved persons byway of writ petitions. C.P. Ravichandran himself had filedW.P.No.12751 of 2004, wherein stay had been granted. Senioritylist has been revised in 2006 in utter disregard of the stay orderand the persons had been promoted. C.P. Ravichandran himself hasfiled W.P.No.44369 of 2006 challenging fixation of seniority inOctober, 2006, and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007 hasbeen challenged in W.P.No.16388 of 2007. Only during pendency ofsuch writ petitions, promotion order in G.O.Ms.No.473 dated2.4.2007 has been issued in violation of the stay order andtherefore such promotees have been rightly reverted.8. In W.P.No.21204 of 2007 the petitioners arechallenging the order dated 9.12.2003 in O.A.No.4155 of 1999, whichhad been filed by A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, Respondent No.1 in thepresent writ petition, wherein these petitioners were therespondents in O.A.No.4155 of 1999. The stand of the petitioner inthe said case is similar to the stand of C.P.Ravichandran andothers and they are depending upon the report of the Committee andthe consequent issuance of seniority list on 23.6.1995. In thiswrit petition, notice had not been served on Respondents 4 and 6and these respondents are being pro-forma respondents, it is notnecessary to wait till service of notice on them, more particularlywhen R. Banumathy herself has filed W.P.No.19862 of 2004 and she isotherwise respondent in several other writ petitions and enteredappearance through her Advocate. Respondents in several other writpetitions had entered appearance through Advocate. The otherrespondents in such writ petition, namely, Respondents 4 to 11,were also respondents in O.A.No.4155 and 6831 of 1999.9. From the narration of facts and events so far it isapparent that the battle lines are now more or less drawn betweenthe persons who succeeded before the Tribunal on one side and thosewho were pitted as Respondents in such Original Applications. Forconvenience, the former group can be compendiously described as the“Applicants” whereas the other group can be described as“contesting Respondents”. Briefly stated, the contention of theformer group is that the seniority in the post of ScientificAssistant Grade I should be on the basis of promotion and not onthe basis of original entry into service as Scientific AssistantGrade II. The contention of the latter group is that persons whohad been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade-I under fortuitouscircumstances should not be treated as seniors. The former groupbanks upon the seniority fixed in the list dated 3.11.1987, whereasthe latter depends upon the seniority fixed in the list dated23.6.1995. The subsequent seniority list dated 2.4.2007 challengedby C.P. Ravichandran in W.P.No.16388 of 2007 is more or less akinto the seniority list dated 3.11.1987. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. The question relates to seniority and promotion inthe rank of Scientific Assistant Grade I and the ScientificOfficer in the Office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It isnot in dispute that the applicant P. Rajan was first appointed asScientific Assistant Grade II on 25.11.1981 whereas the many of the“contesting respondents” were appointed as Scientific AssistantGrade II earlier to such applicant. However, such Respondents haddeclined the promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant Grade Ion account of various individual difficulties and it so happenedthat the applicant was promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade Iwith effect from 17.6.1983, whereas the contesting respondents werepromoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on subsequent dates.11. So far as C.P. Ravichandran, who was Respondent No.3in O.A.No.443 of 1999 and the petitioner in W.P.No.12751 of 2004,is concerned, he was initially appointed as Scientific AssistantGrade II on 1.8.1979. Subsequently, he was appointed as ScientificAssistant Grade I temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil NaduState Subordinate Service Rules by order dated 27.7.1981. In suchappointment, it was indicated that it was purely temporary and willnot confer any preferential right to future appointment.Subsequently, he was transferred and posted temporarily asScientific Assistant Grade II on request by order dated 9.9.1981.He was again temporarily promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade Iby order dated 24.3.1982. Similarly, along with him, some of theother respondents, namely, R. Banumathi, M. Karpakam, P.Subbulakshmi, K. Hemavathi, E. Ezhilarasi and R. Neelakanda Pillaiand K.P. Devarajan were also promoted temporarily as ScientificAssistant Grade I as per the same order. Again by order dated24.6.1982, on the return of one Selvi Annie Cuise, ScientificAssistant Grade I, C.P. Ravichandran was reverted as ScientificAssistant Grade II on request and posted in Excise Division. Thesepersons were declared to have completed their probation vide orderdated 31.5.1983 with effect from earlier dates, effective from1.8.1981. So far as the applicant P. Rajan is concerned, he wasfirst appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 25.11.1981.However, even before the completion of two years and completion ofthe period of probation, he was promoted as Scientific AssistantGrade I by order dated 11.7.1983 and he was continuing as suchthereafter. So far as C.P. Ravichandran is concerned, he was againpromoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I with effect from 19.3.1985and the other “contesting respondents” were promoted as ScientificAssistant Grade I on the subsequent dates. Since there werecertain disputes relating to seniority in the rank of ScientificAssistant Grade I promoted before 3.10.1986, the Government by D.O.Letter No.22429 dated 30.4.1993, constituted a Committee forredressal of service anomalies. The Committee prepared a report,which was circulated by the Director as per the Proceedings dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23.6.1995. In such proceedings it was indicated as if the“contesting respondents” had been promoted as Scientific AssistantGrade I in August 1982, presumably on completion of three years oftheir service as Scientific Assistant Grade II. The applicant P.Rajan was shown to be promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I witheffect from 25.11.1984. Objections had been raised and werepending. 12. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu issuedG.O.Ms.No.7 dated 4.1.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.1999 approvingthe panel of the Scientific Assistant Grade I, fit for appointmentas Scientific Officer in the Forensic Science Laboratory byrecruitment by transfer for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98. In suchfirst panel for the year 1996-97 as per G.O.Ms.No.7, dated4.1.1999, the names of C.P. Ravichandran, R. Neelakanda Pillai andP. Subbulakshmi are included as S.Nos.10, 11 and 12 and in thepanel for the year 1997-98 and, as per G.O.Ms.No.8, K. Hemavathi,R. Banumathi, E. Ezhilarasi, K.P. Devarajan and M. Karpakam wereincluded as S.Nos.3,4,7,8 and 9 respectively. The applicant P.Rajan was not included in any of those panels. It is apparent thatthe panel had been drawn up on the basis of seniority as suggestedvide O.O. dated 23.6.1995 according to date of entry into serviceas Scientific Assistant Grade II.13. Immediately thereafter, P. Rajan filed O.A.No.443 of1999. The main contention which was projected in such O.A. was tothe effect that even though the respondents were appointed asScientific Assistant Grade II earlier than the applicant, they hadexpressed their willingness to forego promotion to the post ofScientific Assistant Grade I and were actually promoted asScientific Assistant Grade I 3 to 4 years after the applicanthimself had been appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade I. It wasfurther stated that the Committee for redressal of serviceanomalies prepared the proceedings without taking into account therelevant records and service particulars and against such reportthe applicant had made a detailed representation on 14.7.1995.Even though the matter had not been finalised, the subsequent panelas per G.O.Ms.No.7 and G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.1999 had beenillegally prepared. The basic contention, therefore, was to theeffect that even though “contesting respondents” were appointedearlier as Scientific Assistant Grade II, since they wereadmittedly appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade I on differentdates later than the appointment of the applicant, they could notbe treated as senior to the applicant in the rank of ScientificAssistant Grade I and, therefore, they could not have been giventhe promotion earlier than the applicant.14. The Tribunal on the basis of various records came tothe conclusion that even though the “contesting respondents” had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on the datesearlier than the applicant P. Rajan, they were actually promoted asScientific Assistant Grade I on different dates later than theappointment of the applicant P. Rajan as Scientific Assistant GradeI. The Tribunal found that all such respondents had initiallyrelinquished their promotion. Ultimately, the Tribunal found thatthe seniority list, which was published on 3.11.1987 had taken intoaccount all the relevant factors and correctly reflected theseniority. The Tribunal further concluded that though suchseniority had been finalised in 1987, without any justification,such seniority was sought to be disturbed as per the report of theCommittee, which was not justified. On the aforesaid basis, theTribunal allowed O.A.No.443 of 1999 and directed that suchapplicant should be taken to be senior in the post of ScientificAssistant Grade I and should be deemed to have been promoted fromthe date on which his juniors have been promoted. Such order isbeing challenged in W.P.No.12751, 19859 to 19862 of 2004. 14.1 Another aggrieved person by name P. Ettiyappan has filedO.A.No.2336of 1999, which is transferred and pending before theHigh Court, Madras as W.P.No.42318 of 2006.15. In W.P.No.12751 of 2004 filed by C.P. Ravichandran,it is contended that the applicant P. Rajan was appointed asScientific Assistant Grade I, purely on temporary basis which wouldnot confer any preferential right to future appointment.Moreover, such P. Rajan had not even completed the probation on13.7.1983 as required under Rule 36(a) of the Tamil Nadu State andSubordinate Service Rules. It has been further stated that in thecommunications and in the seniority list, which had beencirculated, P. Rajan has been shown junior to C.P. Ravichandran andsubsequently the proceedings dated 23.6.1995, on the basis of thereport of the Committee inter se seniority had been correctlyindicated. It has been further submitted that since the writpetitioners had been appointed earlier as Scientific AssistantGrade II and had been regularised earlier, they should have beentreated as seniors. It has been further contended that rule ofrelinquishent, which came into effect by G.O.Ms.No.494 with effectfrom 20.9.1988 after due amendment to Rule 47 of the Tamil NaduState and Subordinate Rules, could not have been applied by theTribunal to hold that those who had relinquished promotion were noteligible for promotion for a period of three years. It has beenfurther submitted that the report of the Committee for redressal ofthe service anomalies was a well considered report and it shouldnot have been interfered with by the Tribunal.16. In W.P.No.19859 of 2004, P. Subbulakshmi, thepetitioner, had been initially appointed as Scientific Assistant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Grade II on 1.8.1979 and she was promoted on 27.7.1981 and postedat Coimbatore, but the petitioner opted to stay back in Madras andon request the promotion was cancelled by proceedings dated29.7.1981 and she continued as Scientific Assistant Grade-II sincethere was no vacancy. Subsequently, she was promoted on24.3.1982, but again on her own request she continued as ScientificAssistant Grade II. Such petitioner had been initially appointedas Scientific Assistant Grade II. It is submitted by her that on9.8.1992 the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.783 and Rule47 was amended, which came into effect from 20.9.1988. Therefore,at the time when she had declined promotion, there was no ruleregarding forfeiture of promotion. The grounds of attackindicated in the above writ petitions are similar to the groundsraised in W.P.No.12751 of 2004.17. In W.P.No.19860 of 2004, M. Karpagam, the petitioner,was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 27.10.1979. Hewas promoted along with others on 24.3.1982, but on her request shewas posted as Scientific Assistant Grade II at Madras as there wasno vacancy in the cadre of Scientific Assistant Grade I. She wasagain promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on 25.3.1987. Thegrounds of attack indicated in the petition are similar to thegrounds raised in W.P.No.12751 of 2004.18. K. Hemavathy, the petitioner in W.P.No.19861 of 2004,was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 1.8.1979. Shewas promoted on 24.3.1982 with others as Scientific Grade I, butposted at Coimbatore. Due to family circumstances she requestedfor a posting at Madras and since there was no vacancy she wascontinued to be posted as Scientific Assistant Grade II.Ultimately, she was again promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade Ion 7.8.1985. She has promoted as Scientific Officer since27.1.1999. The grounds of attack projected in her writ petitionare similar to the grounds raised in W.P.No.12751 of 2004.19. R. Banumathi, the petitioner in W.P.No.19862 of 2004,was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 6.8.1979. Shewas promoted along with the other petitioners on 24.3.1982, but onher own request she was continued to be posted as ScientificAssistant Grade II at Madras and ultimately she was promoted asScientific Assistant Grade I on 5.3.1987. The grounds of attackprojected in her writ petition are similar to those ofW.P.No.12751of 2004.20. From the materials on record it is apparent, as hasbeen noticed by the Tribunal, that all such writ petitioners, whowere the “contesting respondents” before the Tribunal in O.A.No.443of 1999, were appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II duringAugust, 1979, whereas P. Rajan, the applicant in O.A.No.443 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1999, was appointed only in July, 1981. However, all these writpetitioners had either declined the promotion or on beingtemporarily promoted had been reverted without demur to the post ofScientific Assistant Grade II and all such petitioners have beensubsequently promoted after the applicant was given the promotionin July, 1983. The petitioners have submitted that since they wereseniors to the applicant as Scientific Assistant Grade II andsubsequently they had been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade Iand since there was no specific rule at that time that those whodeclined the promotion would be deprived for a particular number ofyears, they should be treated as seniors compared to the applicant.The other contention raised by them is to the effect that on thebasis of the recommendation made by the Committee, seniority hadbeen refixed on 23.6.1995 and the applicant before the Tribunal hadnot specifically challenged such seniority and had merelychallenged the subsequent empanelment of the petitioners as perG.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 8 dated 4.1.1999. It has been further submittedthat at any rate all of them had continued as Scientific Officerfrom January, 1999 and, therefore, the things already settledshould not be unsettled. It is also contended by them that theapplicant has been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I evenbefore he had completed the period of probation of two years and,therefore, as per Rule 37(a) he is not eligible to the promoted atthat stage. The petitioners also submitted that O.A.No.443 of 1999was taken up along with other O.As, wherein the present petitionerswere not parties and the Tribunal had disposed of all the matterstogether without giving opportunity of filing counter to theofficial respondents or even the private respondents by relyingupon the counter in O.A.No.2557 of 2003, wherein only the Directorof the Forensic Science Laboratory was made as a party.The above contention is not acceptable in view of the factthat such persons had enough opportunity to project their stand inthe Original Applications in which they had been impleaded and allsuch matters heard together.21. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant beforethe Tribunal submitted that since the writ petitioners had eitherdeclined the opportunity of promotion or had been reverted andsince the applicant had been promoted ahead to all of them, theycannot be subsequently heard to say that they should be treated asseniors in the place of Scientific Assistant Grade Inotwithstanding their actual promotion after the promotion given tothe applicant. It is further submitted that in the earlierseniority list the position had been correctly reflected and thesubsequent recommendation of the Committee was not justified and atany rate a representation had been made which had not beenconsidered and at the earliest opportunity when the panel wasprepared the applicant had challenged the preparation of the panelbefore the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22. The appointment of P. Rajan as Scientific AssistantGrade II was regularised as per Proceedings No.A1/3393/83 dated5.3.1983 and subsequently as per the proceedings dated 28.6.1988,his services as Scientific Assistant Grade I was regularised witheffect from 25.11.1984. As a matter of fact, by the very sameorder, the services of C.P. Ravichandran, the writ petitioner inW.P.No.12751 of 2004 was regularised as Scientific Assistant GradeI with effect from 19.3.1985.It is the contention of the "contesting respondents inO.A.No.443 of 1999 (Petitioners in first group of writ petitions)that P. Rajan could not have been promoted as Scientific AssistantGrade I before completion of 2 years. In view of the Proceedingsdated 28.6.1998, such a contention cannot be countenanced at such adistant point of time.23. It is no doubt true that all the petitioners havebeen appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II earlier than P.Rajan and even orders had been issued for their promotion asScientific Assistant Grade I. However, all of them due to somepersonal reasons declined to avail such promotional post andpreferred to continue as Scientific Assistant Grade II. In themeantime, the applicant P. Rajan, who had been appointed asScientific Assistant Grade II on 25.11.1981, was made ScientificAssistant Grade I on 11.7.1983. Subsequently, orders have beenissued regularising his appointment as Scientific Assistant Grade Iwith effect from 25.11.1984. It is thus apparent that factuallyall the petitioners have become Scientific Assistant Grade I onlyafter the applicant P. Rajan had become Scientific Assistant GradeI. It is of course true that initial promotion of the applicantas Scientific Assistant Grade I in July, 1983 was to some extentirregular in the sense that such applicant was yet to complete hisprobation. However, the fact remains that by the subsequent officeorder his appointment as Scientific Assistant Grade I has been maderegular with effect from 25.11.1984. It is significant that theappointment of C.P. Ravichandran, the writ petitioner inW.P.No.12751 of 2004, as Scientific Assistant Grade I is alsoregularised by the very same order issued in 1988 with effect from19.3.1985. Therefore, there cannot be any escape from theconclusion that C.P. Ravichandran, the petitioner in W.P.No.12751of 2004, was all along aware that P. Rajan was made ScientificAssistant Grade I on a date earlier to him. Admittedly, other writpetitioners have been made Scientific Assistant Grade I onsubsequent dates. Thus, factually P. Rajan had become ScientificAssistant Grade I on a date earlier than the present writpetitioners. This precisely is the conclusion of theAdministrative Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

24. It is of course true that before 1988 there was nospecific rule relating to with-holding of promotion to a person whodeclines promotion. That does not, however, alter the factualposition that as a matter of fact the present petitioners have beenpromoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I after the promotion of theapplicant P. Rajan. In such a background, we do not find anythingto interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal so far asW.P.Nos.12751, 19859 to 19862 to 2004 are concerned. For the verysame reasons, the subsequent two writ petitions, namely,W.P.No.44369 of 2006 and W.P.No.16388 of 2007, filed by C.P.Ravichandran, do not call for any interference.25. C.P. Ravichandran, the petitioner in W.P.No.12751 of2004, has also filed W.P.No.44369 of 2006 and W.P.Nos.16388 of 2007challenging the issuance of subsequent seniority list in October,2006, by the Director and by the State Government. Service Bio-data of the petitioner upto the time of his appointment asScientific Officer vide order dated 4.1.1999 has been narrated insuch writ petition. The petitioner has stated that seven posts ofAssistant Director in Forensic Department have fallen vacant to befilled up and, on the basis of the efforts made by the firstrespondent P. Rajan, a provisional seniority list on the basis ofthe order passed by the Tribunal had been circulatednotwithstanding the fact that stay had been granted and petitionfor vacating the stay had been rejected. The fate of these writpetitions is therefore dependent upon the result in W.P.No.12751 of2004.26. So far as W.P.No.21204 of 2007 filed against thecommon order of the Tribunal relating to O.A.No.4155 of 1999 isconcerned, such writ petition is liable to be dismissed for thesame reason for which W.P.No.12751 of 2004 and other connectedmatters has been dismissed. The Tribunal has analysed as to howsuch persons had declined the opportunity for promotion and as tohow the name of the applicant A. Viswa Monna Mohammed had beenignored while considering the panel. Moreover, such writ petitionhas been filed only in the year 2007, even though the Tribunal hadrendered the judgment in O.A.No.4155 of 1999 in 2003. Therefore,in addition to the reasons applicable in W.P.No.12751 of 2004,W.P.No.21204 of 2007 is also liable to be dismissed on the groundof laches.27. W.P.Nos.33893 and 36679 of 2007 filed by S.Muralikrishna are concerned, he claims that he was appointed asScientific Assistant Grade II on 17.3.1981 and after completion oftwo years he was regularised from the date of entering intoservice. It is claimed by him that he had requested the Director https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to promote him as Scientific Assistant Grade I but, overlooking hisseniority, his juniors had been promoted as Scientific AssistantGrade I. It is further claimed by him that he had protestedagainst the promotion of such Juniors and the Director had repliedthat such promotion was temporary in nature and would not conferany seniority on those persons. It is not disputed by him that hewas subsequently promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on27.2.1986. He has also stated that on 3.11.1986, an integratedseniority list was published. He further claimed thatrepresentations have been made and thereafter seniority list dated23.6.1995 had been prepared and his seniority has been correctlyfixed. In essence, he has challenged G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007.Subsequently, the other writ petition has been filed challengingthe promotion of Respondents 4 to 8 in such writ petition.28. It is to be noticed that even though the petitionerhad claimed that he had protested earlier and had maderepresentations, he had made a representation on 27.11.2006, whichis rejected by the Director on 19.12.2006. Thereafter, he appearsto have made another representation dated 29.12.2006 andsubsequently on 2.5.2007. It is to be noticed that Office OrderNo.233/88 dated 28.6.1988 had indicated about the regularisation ofservices of different Scientific Assistants Grade I from differentdates. In the said document, which was communicated to allconcerned, the petitioner was shown to have been regularised witheffect from 27.2.1986 and the persons above whom he is now claimingseniority had been regularised with effect from earlier dates. Ifthe petitioner had any grievance, he should have ventilated thesame soon thereafter. There is nothing on record to indicate thatin fact he had made further representation until after the Directorrefixed the seniority on 25.10.2006.29. Having kept quiet for a long period, such petitionersuddenly cannot claim ante-dating his seniority from 1983 on theground that he should have been promoted as Scientific AssistantGrade I then. At this distant point of time, it is not possible toverify and accept the bold, but beautifully vague, and baldassertion that he protested against his promotion and he had maderepresentations, more particularly in the absence of anycontemporaneous document. In the absence of any suchcontemporaneous document, it is difficult to accept such baldassertion that he had made representations when his juniors havebeen promoted to the post of Scientific Assistant Grade I, moreparticularly when such promotion has taken place more than twodecades back. The materials on record, on the other hand, suggestthat he preferred to be posted at Chennai as Scientific AssistantGrade II instead of being promote as Scientific Assistant Grade Ias he would have been posted outside. Law is well settled that inthe matters relating to seniority, the person aggrieved should https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ventilate his grievance within a reasonable period and the matterswhich have been finalised should not be re-opened. The senioritylist, which has been circulated by the Director on 25.10.2006 andsubsequently approved by the Government on 2.4.2007 is based on allrelevant factors. Therefore, we are unable to accept thecontention of such petitioner and such writ petitions are thereforeliable to be dismissed.30. The other W.P.Nos.8955 to 8965, 9224 and 9225 of 2008are directed against the order of reversion. Since we have thoughtit fit to dismiss W.P.No.16338 of 2007, the order of reversion mustbe taken to be inoperative. These writ petitions are thereforeallowed.31. So far as W.P.No.42318 of 2006 is concerned, theclaim of seniority of such applicant is prima facie justified. Thelogic projected by the Tribunal in O.A.No.443 of 1999, which isapproved by us in the earlier paragraphs, is equally applicable.The contention that he could not have been promoted as ScientificAssistant Grade I before completion of two years is liable to berejected for the same reason for which we have rejected similarcontention relating to P. Rajan in W.P.No.12751 of 2004. It isapparent that subsequently he has been promoted, subject to resultof the case in W.P.No.16388 of 2007, and thereafter an order ofreversion was passed, which has been challenged in W.P.No.8956 of2008. At any rate, in the subsequent seniority list, which hasbeen approved by the Government on 2.4.2007, he has been shownsenior and we have not interfered with such seniority nor we haveinterfered with his promotion. In view of the order passed inW.P.No.8956 of 2008, it is not necessary to specifically deal withO.A.No.2366 of 1999 transferred as W.P.No.42318 of 2006, which isaccordingly disposed of.32. Therefore, on a perusal of all the relevant documentsavailable in all the writ petitions and keeping in view thesubmissions made by the rival parties including the submission madeby the Special Government Pleader for the State, our conclusion isto the following effect :-(1) There is no merit in W.P.Nos.12751, 19859, 19860, 19861and 19862 of 2004, filed by Respondent Nos.3, 4, 9, 5 and 6 inO.A.No.443 of 1999. All such writ petitioners, who wererespondents before the Tribunal had either willingly declined theopportunity of promotion as they would be likely sent out ofChennai or when promoted and subsequently reverted had acquiescedin such reversion and had not at that stage challenged promotion ofany of the juniors before any court of law. Their contention thatthe seniority list circulated on 23.6.1995 had become final is notacceptable inasmuch as many representations had been made and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ immediately after preparation of panel as per G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated4.1.1999, Original Applications had been filed by persons who hadbeen ignored.(2) The direction in O.A.No.443 of 1999 and other connectedmatters that the persons who had been ignored were to be consideredfor promotion from an earlier date in the absence of any challengeby the State Government, is also sustainable.(3) Subsequent seniority list finalised on 25.10.2006 by theDirector and accepted as per order dated 2.4.2007 by the StateGovernment, is challenged by C.P. Ravichandran in W.P.Nos.44369 of2006 and 16388 of 2007. Since the basic contention raised by C.P.Ravichandran in W.P.No.12751 of 2004 is not acceptable, we do notfind any scope to interfere with such seniority list at theinstance of C.P. Ravichandran. Therefore, W.P.Nos.44369 of 2006directed against the seniority list issued by the Director and,W.P.No.16388 of 2007 directed against the seniority list approvedby the State Government, are liable to be dismissed.(4) W.P.No.21204 of 2007, filed against the order relating toO.A.No.4155 of 1999 is liable to be dismissed, both on merit aswell as on the ground of laches, inasmuch as the impugned order waspassed by the Tribunal in the year 2003.(5) W.P.Nos.33893 and 36679 of 2007 filed by one S.Muralikrishna, who is not a party to O.A.No.443 of 1999, againstthe seniority list issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.473dated 2.4.2007 and the seniority list issued by the Director on9.10.2006 and 25.10.2006, are also liable to be dismissed.(6) W.P.NOs.8955 to 8965 of 2008 and W.P.Nos.9224 and 9225 of2008 challenging the order of reversion are to be allowed inasmuchas the orders of reversion have been passed obviously because ofthe pendency of the contempt applications. While giving promotionto those persons it has been specifically indicated that suchpromotion was being given subject to the result in W.P.No.16388 of2007. Now that W.P.No.16388 of 2007 is being dismissed, there isno justification in the subsequent reversion order. (7) In view of the order passed in W.P.No.8956 of 2008, nofurther order is required in O.A.No.2366 of 1999, transferred andrenumbered as W.P.No.42318 of 2006, which is accordingly disposedof. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.dpkTo1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home (Police) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Director, Forensic Sciences Department, Forensic House, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.3. The Director General of PoliceChennai4. The SecretaryTamilnadu Public Service CommissionGovernment Estate, Chennai- 600 002.3 ccs to Mr.L. Chandrakumar, Advocate, SR. 39971 cc to Mr.S. Mani, Advocate, SR. 38405 ccs to Mr.K. Chakrapani, Advocate, SR. 3849 to 38531 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 43501 cc to Mr.R. Singaravelan, Advocate, SR. 42361 cc to Mr.K. Sudalaikannu, Advocate, SR. 45411 cc to Mr. Govindarraj, Advocate, SR. 46821 cc to Mr.K. Surendranath, Advocate, SR. 38331 cc to Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, Advocate, SR. 3848W.P.No.12751 of 2004 & batchKM (CO)kk,km,sra 6/3