R RAMASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the Government in G.O.(Per.)No.219, Tamil Culture and Development Endowment (TD2.1) Department, dated 28.10.2003, by which the claim of the petitioner to be promoted as the Director of Tamil Development-cum-Public was rejected by the Government.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Project Officer in the erstwhile Tamil Culture Department on 21.05.1979, which was merged with the Tamil Development Department in the year 1980 and after the constitution of the said Tamil Development Department, the petitioner was transferred along with the post as Project Officer. THE petitioner is stated to have obtained Ph.D in the year 1983 in History and Archaeology based on his research in Tamil inscription and literature. a) It is stated that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 6.9.1989 ordered that the Project Officer in the Tamil Culture Department is equivalent to the Assistant Director in Tamil Development Department with identical scale of pay. THE petitioner was senior in the cadre of Assistant Director eligible for the next avenue of promotion to the post of Deputy Director. While the petitioner was appointed as Project Officer in the cadre of Assistant Director on 21.5.1979, his juniors M/s. Selvaraj and Duraisamy were appointed as Assistant Directors on 10.12.1979 and 25.8.1981 respectively. b) When the said Mr.Selvaraj was promoted as Deputy Director ignoring the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.632 of 1993. THE O.A. filed by him came to be dismissed by the Tribunal against which the Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, wherein it was held that the petitioner was senior to other two persons in the cadre of Assistant Director in the judgment dated 11.8.1995. THE petitioner was subsequently promoted as Deputy Director of Tamil Development Department from the date of promotion of his junior Mr.Selvaraj viz., 9.1.1992, as per G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 25.2.1998. c) THE said Selvaraj was subsequently promoted as Director and retired from service on 30.4.1995 during the pendency of the above O.A. filed by the petitioner. However, the claim of the petitioner for further promotion as Director was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not possess necessary qualifications for the post of Director. It was, in those circumstances, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3922 of 1998 challenging the appointment of Mr.Selvaraj as Director and for a direction that the petitioner should be deemed to have been promoted as Director from the date of promotion of his junior Mr.Selvaraj. d) THE petitioner possesses Master Degree in History and Archaeology and Ph.D. in History and Archaeology based on Tamil inscriptions and Tamil literature. THE petitioner is stated to have contributed many articles, journals, poems, presentation of papers, etc. to Tamil literature. He has claimed that as per clause 3 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu General Service, he is qualified to the post of Director. THE Tribunal set aside the G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 25.2.1998 in respect of paragraph-4 by which the claim of the petitioner to confer the post of Director on him on par with his junior Mr.Selvaraj came to be rejected. e) THE Tribunal in the order dated 3.7.2002, while setting aside the said paragraph-4, directed the Government to reconsider the claim of the petitioner to the post of Director of Tamil Development Department. It was, against the said order, the Government filed W.P.No.5647 of 2003 and a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 24.2.2003 dismissed the writ petition with the result, as per the order of the Tribunal, the respondent Government has to consider the petitioner for the post of Director. f) In fact, it was the stand of the Government that the rule 3 of the Special Rules prescribes qualifications for the post of Director stating that "no persons shall be eligible for appointment to this class unless he possesses Master Degree in Tamil or he is a scholar of Repute in Tamil" and in respect of the term, 'Scholar of Repute" it was equated to 'eminent scholar' which is used for admission to professional courses under special reservation for sons and daughters of eminent scholars in Tamil. g) THE Division Bench has held that Ph.D. conferred on the petitioner is mainly based on Tamil Inscription and literature and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a person of reputed Scholar in Tamil and that the said order of the Division Bench has become final. THEreafter, the petitioner has made a representation on 19.3.2003 requesting the Government to comply with the order of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court with effect from 28.10.1993 with service benefits. h) It was, thereafter on the petitioner initiating contempt proceedings, the impugned order came to be passed by the Government again rejecting the claim of the petitioner against which the present writ petition has been filed on various grounds including that the petitioner is qualified to be promoted to the post of Director of Tamil Development Department; that the respondent has been inventing new reasons for the purpose of denying the said right to the petitioner; that the term, "eminent scholar" has nothing to do with the reputed skill and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.81, Higher Education dated 31.5.2001 relating to admission of students to professional courses by giving reservation to the sons and daughters of eminent scholars in Tamil has no application; that even after the Court declared that the petitioner is fully qualified, the respondent has chosen to reject the claim of the petitioner again on the basis that the petitioner is not a reputed scholar; and that the genuine right of the petitioner for the promotion to the next post of Director came to be rejected which is arbitrary and illegal, apart from raising other grounds.

(3.) I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader and given my anxious thoughts to the issue involved in this case.