G. KAMALESH Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another case arising out of a perennial dispute between direct recruits and promotees. The direct recruits in the cadre of Assistants had challenged an amendment to 5(g) of Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Revenue Sub-ordination Service. The said amendment provided for the Assistants working in the Revenue Department who have completed five years of service and passed all the tests prescribed besides undergoing training as Firka Revenue Inspector for a period of two years to be placed above their seniors appointed other than by direct recruitment, namely, the promotees. They are aggrieved by the fixation of a minimum of five years service for the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, since according to the promotees, the promotees had to have a minimum experience of only four years, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The appellants who had filed the Writ Petition along with three others had stated that by virtue of this amendment, the promotee Assistants were given preferential treatment after completion of four years. They have to complete a minimum period of two years as Assistant and two years as Revenue Inspector in order to be considered for the promotion to Deputy Tahsildar. The direct recruit Assistants and the promotee Assistants have to be treated equally and this difference provided as minimum period of experience between the direct recruits and the promotee Assistants, who formed the feeder category, is arbitrary and denies equal opportunity in public employment. The appellants claimed that this difference in prescribing the minimum period of experience had assumed significance and had affected their seniority and prospects for next promotion pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Rathinaswami and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 625, by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the rule shall be applicable to those promotees who are non-graduates and held that graduate promotee Assistants shall be held on par with direct recruit Assistants. By virtue of this decision, the seniority of the appellants got affected since the original rule had placed them above all promotee Assistants irrespective of their educational qualification. They claimed that the rule as read down by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court gives an unfair advantage to promotee graduate Assistants for whom a minimum period of four years is sufficient to be promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, who heard the Writ Petition filed by the appellants along with a batch of similar Writ Petitions, held that a reading of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.Rathinaswami's case (cited supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had read down the rule, would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the rule as a whole and had given an interpretation to ensure that it is fair. The learned Judge found that the Writ Petition was an attempt to rewrite the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence a clear abuse of process of law. The learned Judge further found that it is for the State Government to consider the relevant experience that is required for being transferred to the higher posts in different service and hence dismissed the Writ Petition.