S P SHANTHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Administration Department, pursuant to the TNPSC written examinations held on 30.05.2010 for Direct Recruitment to the said post.

(2.) THE petitioner herein was appointed as Audit Inspector on 15.03.2000 in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (in short 'HR & CE") Department by way of Direct Recruitment after emerging successful in the Exam conducted by the third respondent/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC / Commission) and presently, she is working in the Office of the Assistant Audit Officer, HR & CE Department - Audit Wing. THE petitioner belongs to S.C. Community and having completed Law Degree in the year 2005, her next avenue of promotion is to the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Department. While so, Notification No.122, dated 01.08.2007, came to be issued governing the mode and procedure for filling up the vacancies for the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Department and, challenging such Notification, a writ petition in W.P. No.28891 of 2007 was filed for a direction to include Executive Officers possessing Law Degree and 5 years of service without any age stipulation in the eligibility criteria for appointment to the said post. By Order, dated 22.10.2009, passed in the said writ petition, this Court issued a direction to the Department to frame new guidelines for recruitment by amending the rules suitably. Consequently, G.O. Ms. No.335, Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and Information Department, dated 09.11.2009, was issued by the Government, amending the existing Rules, thereby, those employees who have put in 6 years of service in the Executive Cadre Grade I or II or III or IV or Inspector or Head Clerk or Manager or Superintendent in the Administrative Side of the Department were also made eligible to be considered for promotion the post of Assistant Commissioner. By claiming that they also possess requisite qualification on par with the staff in Ministerial Service and Subordinate Service of the Department, the Audit Staff Association of the HR & CE Administration Department made a representation, dated 04.01.2010, to the 2nd respondent/Commissioner, HR & CE, and the said Authority, considering such representation, by proceedings in R.C. No.20935/2010/B1, dated 23.09.2010, recommended to the first respondent for amendment in the Rules. While so, to fill up 25 vacancies for the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Department by direct recruitment, Notification No.223, dated 20.12.2009, was issued inviting Applications from eligible candidates. In response to the said Notification, the petitioner applied to the Commission, wrote the examination and the results came to be published in the website on 26.11.2010. According to the petitioner, though she had secured 325 out of 400 marks in the written examination as against the cut off marks of 275/400 and 300/400 prescribed for SC category to which she belongs to and for the O.C. Category respectively, she was not selected to the post of Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) IN the same lines, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents-1 and 2/HR & CE Department, forcibly contends that inasmuch as the petitioner is not an INspector in the Department's Administrative Wing and she is an 'Audit INspector' attached to the Audit Wing, as per the rules governing the selection process at the relevant time, legally, the petitioner could not be considered for selection/promotion to the post in question when the scrutiny revealed that she should not have been allowed even to sit for the examination. IN that regard, he submits that the nature of work and responsibilities attached to the post of INspectors, Executive Officers and Audit INspectors are totally different. Similarly, the scale of pay for the post of INspectors/Executive Officers are also quite different. While INspectors and Executive Officers are directly involved in the day-to-day administration of the temples, the Audit INspectors were never assigned with duties pertaining to temple administration rather their job is restricted to auditing of the temple accounts and find out the lapses, commission and omission therein. Further, the post of Audit INspector came to be re-designated by virtue of G.O.Ms. No.69, C.T. & R.E. Department, dated 24.01.1979, and prior to such re-designation, the name of the post was 'Audit Assistant' which was equivalent to the post of 'Assistant' in the Ministerial Service. Under such circumstances, as on the date of Notification, the petitioner was ineligible to write the examination and such aspect surfaced only during the scrutiny prior to selection, the authorities rightly rejected her case despite the fact that she secured higher marks; thus, there is no scope for interference by this Court.