S RAJAVELU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, had passed an order, dated 27.11.1992, in O.A.No.1429 of 1989 etc. (batch), striking down the third proviso to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, as unconstitutional, as it was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the promotions granted by fixing the ratio of 4:1 between Junior Assistants and Typists/Steno Typists for promotion to the post of Assistant cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law.

(2.) THE learned counsel had also submitted that the amendment made in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, by way of the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.245, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 12.3.1985, had been held to be arbitrary, offending the principles of equality and fairness. Accordingly, all the promotions granted to Junior Assistants and Typists/Steno Typists categories, based on the 4:1 ratio should be set aside and the petitioners should be placed above the third respondent, based on his seniority in the promoted post, along with the attendant benefits.

(3.) IT has been further stated that during the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, certain associations of Typists and Steno Typists had filed original applications, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, questioning the system of 4:1 ratio being followed in granting promotions to the post of Assistants. By an order, dated 27.11.1992, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had quashed the third proviso to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. As per the instructions issued by the Tribunal the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.417, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 1.12.1993, had directed that a panel for promotion to the post of Assistants should be prepared from the common interse seniority list prepared from the qualified Junior Assistants and Typists. Accordingly, the 4:1 ratio system in granting such promotions had been given up. As per the revised procedure ordered by the Government the petitioners had been considered for being promoted to the post of Assistants and their names had been included in the panel of Assistants, for the years 1993-1994. The petitioners had been regularized in the cadre of Assistants, as on 12.1.1994. The appeals preferred before the State Government had been rejected.