STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. A R CHAKRAVARTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'), whereby the tribunal allowed the original application filed by one Dr.A.R.Chakravarthy, claiming seniority over Dr.C.J.Vela and Dr.V.Madhini. The mainstay of Dr.Chakravarthy is that he was appointed under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') on 1.11.1971 as Temporary Assistant Surgeon and thereafter he was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 5.3.1976 and ultimately a regular appointment order was issued on 22.12.1978 appointing him in service with effect from 1.11.1971. It seems that by the impugned order G.O.(D) No.438, Health dated 22.6.1994, which was communicated to Dr.Chakravarthy by an order dated 1.7.1994, the respondents 3 and 4 before the Tribunal were given promotion overlooking the seniority of the petitioner therein, viz., Dr.Chakravarthy.

(2.) HE therefore filed the original application before the Tribunal. This application was opposed by the Government suggesting that the seniority of the petitioner was fixed according to the ranking given by the Public Service Commission when he was selected by the Service Commission and, therefore, Dr.Chakravarthy was placed lower than the third and fourth respondents. The tribunal has refused to accept this explanation and defence and found that identical question was considered by it in T.A.No.658 of 1989 by its judgment dated 28.2.1990, wherein the tribunal held that the seniority would reckon from the date of original appointments particularly in case of the candidates who were later on confirmed and who were granted the said seniority. The tribunal, therefore, refused to accept the defence and allowed the application. It is this order, which is in challenge before us.

(3.) THE contention that Dr.Chakravarthy was appointed with effect from 1.11.1971 only for the purpose of pay and pension has no basis as the Government Pleader could not show any document to support the same. THE order dated 22.12.1978 also does not suggest that. In short, the writ petition has no merits at all and it is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only). Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.4358/2001 is also dismissed.