K PARTHASARATHY Vs. ADDI DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against an order of the Tamil Nadu administrative Tribunal in a proceeding before it. That proceeding was initiated by the appellants. They were appointed as junior assistants on compassionate ground in the year 1984. It appears they were regularly promoted as Assistants in 1988. An order was made by the Additional Director of agriculture (Personnel Management) , Madras by which he fixed the inter se seniority of the candidates recruited from three sources, namely: 1. Those recruited by Tamil Nadu Public service Commission; 2. Those appointed on compassionate grounds, such as the appellants; 3. Those appointed under Rules for special absorption.

(2.) The Director ordered that the seniority of those who are appointed on compassionate grounds will be refixed amongst the tamil Nadu Public Service Commission candidates of the year concerned duly taking into consideration the date of joining and their names will be deleted from the panel for regular promotions to the post of Assistant as on 15/3/89. However, it was made clear that the services of Junior Assistants who were temporarily promoted as Assistants will be regularised in terms of Rule 35 (aa) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate service Rules i. e. the regularisation of services in the post of Assistant shall be made on the date of appointment of their juniors. That order was challenged before the Tribunal. On examination of the relevant rules, the Tribunal took the view that in the case of persons other than the candidates selected by Public Service Commission, seniority will be fixed from the date of appointment in accordance with the principles underlying Rule 35 (aa) of tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service rules and for that purpose relevant date in respect of the candidates covered by the special Absorption Rules will be the date of their regularisation in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 548 dated 19/6/87, which is 25/6/84. The tribunal upheld the order made by the Director of Agriculture and dismissed the applications filed by the appellants.

(3.) In these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter considered by the Tribunal had been earlier considered by the High Court of Madras in writ petition No. 7730 of 1987 and disposed of on 8th April, 1988. In that case, learned single Judge of the High Court elaborately considered the relevant rules and took the view that the persons appointed on compassionate grounds should be treated at par with those who are recruited through the Public service Commission and, therefore, when the candidates recruited through the Public service Commission are ranked above those appointed under the Absorption Rules. Necessarily the appellants who are appointed on compassionate grounds, who ranked along with the candidates recruited through the public Service Commission should stand above and certain directions were given as to the manner in which the Rules have to be worked out. This view of the learned single judge was confirmed in the appeals and thereafter the special leave petitions preferred to this Court stood dismissed. He therefore, submitted that in view of this decision, the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision of the High Court and should not have disturbed the state of affairs that prevailed till then. He further pointed out that subsequently in O. A. Nos. 1436, 1684 and 1810 of 1995 disposed of on 23rd january, 1996 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal, the view taken by the High court stood reiterated and, therefore, the tribunal has not been consistent in its view and the view taken by the Tribunal in the order under appeal needs interference in our 1999 SCW (Suppl. ) /308 hands.