C KANNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was regularly appointed as Gr.II Warder on 16.12.69 and after 11 years, he was promoted as Chief Head Warder on 07.10.81 by the Promotion Board. Later on, the promotional board also found him fit to the promotional post of Assistant Jailor/Sub-Jail Superintendent. THE direct recruitment Assistant Jailors were appointed and their services were also regularised from 02.09.85. One month after the appointment of directly Assistant Jailors, the services of promotees were also regularised on 19.03.85. On the basis of the regularisation, the 2nd respondent/the Inspector General of Prison, Chennai, prepared a seniority list containing Assistant Jailors for promotion to the Deputy Jailors on 04.02.87 placing the petitioner and similarly situated promotees below the direct recruitees by showing the petitioner at rank No.93, while his juniors by name P.Govindarajan, was shown at rank No.25. Aggrieved by the said seniority list dated 04.02.87, the petitioner and similarly placed promotees made a representation to the 2nd respondent to revise the seniority and place them over and above the direct recruit Assistant Jailors. But, without considering the representation, the 2nd respondent started to give effect to the seniority list dated 04.02.87 from 03.01.89 onwards. In the meanwhile, the Superintendent of Prison, Madurai, also called upon the petitioner to appear for the test for the selection of Deputy Jailors to be held on 09.01.89 and 10.01.89 at Vellore. But, on 06.01.89, the petitioner was instructed not to appear for the test by the Superintendent of Prison, by way of telegram. THE seniority list dated 04.02.87 was given effect by the 2nd respondent promoting the direct recruits, who are similarly placed in Serial Nos.24 and 28 as the Deputy Jailors.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner made his representation for inclusion of his name in the Deputy Jailors panel, but the same was rejected on 10.03.89. Consequently, the petitioner filed O.A.No.126 of 1991 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing the seniority list of Assistant Jailors dated 04.02.87 with a consequential direction to refix his seniority above that of direct recruitees. The Tribunal also passed an interim order keeping the main matter pending, that any promotion during the pendency of the OA, will be subject to the result of OA.No.126 of 1991 and even during the pendency of the OA, adhoc promotions were given to the direct recruit based on the seniority list dated 04.02.87. On 09.03.93, the Tribunal quashing the seniority list dated 04.02.87, issued by the 2nd respondent, directed the 2nd respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner in O.A.No.126/91 along with other similarly placed persons retrospectively with effect from the date on which they were fully qualified to hold the post of Assistant Jailors. Subsequently, in the light of the order dated 12.02.94 passed in O.A.No.126/91, the 1st respondent passed G.O.Ms.No.170, regularising the 15 promotees including the petitioner with effect from 08.09.83 in the post of Assistant Jailors. Apprehending the reversion from the post of Deputy Jailor, the direct recruits filed O.A.No.1369/98 seeking a direction not to revert them from the post of Deputy Jailor. As prayed for, the Tribunal restrained the 1st and 2nd respondents from reverting them from the post of Deputy Jailors. Against the order of Tribunal in O.A.No.126/91, some of the direct recruits filed the review application in R.A.No.153/93 and the same was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Subsequently, as against the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.126/91 and R.A.No.153/94, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration on 09.01.95 in Civil Appeal No.744 and 745 of 95. Thereafter, the O.A.No.126/91, was reheard on 19.06.96 and finally, quashed the seniority list prepared by the 2nd respondent dated 04.02.87 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to refix the seniority of the petitioner above the direct recruits Assistant Jailors within three weeks. Therefore, the respondents are bound to follow the seniority list prepared as per the direction given by the Tribunal. In this connection, suitable direction was sought for to place the petitioner in appropriate place.

(3.) THE crucial date for preparation for the panel was on 15.02.93. THE Government, by taking into account the crucial date, after careful examination, decided to accept the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and accordingly, directed that in relaxation of Rule 2 and 5 of the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Jail Service Branch-I relating to method of appointment and qualification respectively, the name of the petitioner was included in the panel of Deputy Jailors fit for promotion to the post of Jailor for the year 1994-95. Subsequently, after the publication of the notification, the Tamil Nadu Government included their names in the regular panel for the year 1994-95 in the order of preference. THE petitioner suffered a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect on 14.08.2001, which came to be over on 13.08.2002. THEreafter, the petitioner's name was considered and promoted as Additional Superintendent of Prisons on 13.06.2005 with effect from 26.03.1998. Once again, the name of the petitioner was considered and promoted as Superintendent of Prison on 16.05.2008. THE petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent praying to include his name in the regular panel of Jailor for the year 1993-94. While considering the representation of the petitioner, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has suffered a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect vide G.O.Ms.No.767, Home (Pri.I) Department, dated 14.08.2001 and as per the guidelines issued in Government letter No.67652/S/2002-6, P&AR (S) Department, dated 27.08.2003, any punishment awarded after the crucial date, but before the actual promotion shall be held against the officer. As the punishment mentioned above falls after the crucial date and before the actual promotion, the petitioner's name was rightly passed over from inclusion in the panel for the year 1993-94, but included in the regular panel for the year 1994-95 vide G.O.Ms.No.673, Home (Pri.I) Department, dated 07.08.2003. THEreafter, the request of the petitioner to refix his seniority in the category of Jailor does not deserve consideration. THE Government also, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.858, Home (Pri.I) Department, dated 01.10.2009, included the name of the petitioner in the regular panel of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons for the year 2009-2010 by relaxing provision contained in Rule 5 Branch-I General of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Jail Service in Class 1 category 2 relating to service qualification in favour of petitioner, so as to include the petitioner in the regular panel of Superintendent of Prisons fit for promotion as Deputy Inspector General of Prisons for the year 2009-2010 and he was finally, regularly promoted as Deputy Inspector General of Prisons by posting him to act as Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Trichy Range in the existing vacancy. He was also given additional charge of the post of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, until further orders.