V.MANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings, dated 03.05.2004, made in Letter No.23118/Pani.3(1)/2004-5 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to amend suitably G.O. Ms.159, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Dept., dt.27.6.1994, to include the physically handicapped persons also for further promotion or appointment by transfer of service and also further direct the 4th respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for the year 2000 relating to the list of Deputy Tahsildar under Physically Handicapped Quota and give promotion to him as Deputy Tahsildar with all consequential benefits.

(2.) MR .L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, who is physically handicapped and working as Assistant in the Revenue Divisional Office, Dharmapuri, is qualified for the promotional post of Deputy Tahsildar either under the Physically Handicapped Quota as per G.O. Ms. No.159/P and A.R.Dept., dated 27.06.1994 or under the Backward Class (BC) Category. But unfortunately, his name was not included in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars of Dharmapuri District for the year 2000. Even though he has 20 years of unblemished record of service, without there being any punishment in the service nor any charge memo issued or pending against him, the first respondent rejected his representation to include his name. Such rejection is not only against G.O. Ms. No.159, dated 27.06.1994, which gives details as to how reservation is to be done for the blind, deaf and orthopaedically handicapped persons under each category but also goes against the decision, dated 20.07.2011, rendered by this Court in W.P. No.4482 of 2011(T) (A.Rajamanickam v. State of T.N. and two others), wherein, this Court, while dealing with similar issue, referred to Rule 6 of the Special Rules for T.N. Revenue Subordinate Services and held that, in the matter of appointment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, Rule 22 of the T.N. State and Subordinate Service Rules viz, General Rules, should be applied and that there should be reservation for physically handicapped persons also. It was concluded in the said decision that the authorities should have granted reservation for physically handicapped persons also while making appointments to the post of Deputy Tahsildar by appointment by transfer from various services. On that basis, learned counsel contended that the present impugned order is arbitrary and an outcome of colourable exercise of power, for, the respondents purposely failed to give effect to G.O. Ms. No.159 which is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. Moreover, when the Government have issued orders granting some reservation for physically handicapped persons, whatever be the method and mode of recruitment, the respondents ought to look into the intention behind which the order came to be passed. According to the learned counsel, the respondents failed to note that the Government have followed the communal rotation in initial appointment in all the Departments but after appointment, communal rotation has not been followed. For all these reasons, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side.