S.PRABHU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein seek for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Pro.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/13659/2001, dated 16.08.2004, quash the same and to issue a consequential direction to respondents -1 and 2 to fix the seniority of Respondents -5 to 16 with reference to the date of concurrence of their appointments as Junior Assistants by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission i.e. 25.10.1990.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, by highlighting the facts at the first instance, would submit that the first petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Junior Assistant on 17.08.1990 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant on 18.07.1996. Similarly, the second petitioner, who was initially appointed as Typist on 1.2.1988, subsequently got promotion to the post of Assistant on 1.9.1995. The third petitioner, who was initially appointed as Rural Welfare Officer Grade II on 08.06.1988, was promoted as Assistant on 01.09.1995. Thereafter, petitioners -2 and 3 were further promoted to the post of Extension officers. While so, consequent to formulation of single service Rules in Rural Welfare Department, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in and by G.O.Ms.No.349, P. and A.R. Department [Per.B], dated 12.04.1984, issued amendments relating to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial services, reconstituting the Ministerial Unit of the Panchayat Development Department. The amendments, among others, provided that, in respect of Junior Assistants/Rural Welfare Officers Grade II/Cashiers in each Unit of Panchayat Development Department, 10% of the vacancies are to be filled up from among the part -time/full -time clerks serving in Village Panchayats and another 10% from among the Record Clerks serving in Panchayat Unions, provided they had put in 5 years of service in the said post and possessed the Minimum General Educational Qualification, and the remaining 80% shall be reserved to be filled up by open competition in the cycle indicated below: - 1. Record Clerk 2.Open Competition 3.Open Competition 4.Open Competition 5.Open Competition 6.Part -time clerk 7.Open competition 8.Open Competition 9.Open Competition 10.Open Competition The District Collector of erstwhile composite North Arcot District, in his proceedings in Lr.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/7329/85 dated 09.05.1985, submitted proposals for filling up of an approximate 15 vacancies of Junior Assistants in the composite North Arcot District from Part -Time Clerks of Village Panchayats and sought for the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public service Commission. When there was no order passed, the District Collector, North Arcot District, Vellore, in and by his proceedings in Pro.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/7329/85 dated 17.05.1985, promoted 13 Part -Time Clerks working in several Village Panchayats as Junior Assistants. By another order dated 10.05.1986, the same District Collector, North Arcot District, Vellore, appointed six record clerks serving in certain panchayat Unions as Junior Assistants and thereafter, the third respondent/District Collector, Vellore, sought for ratification of the Government for such appointments. However, the Government by their letter No.40007/E3/85 -3, Rural Development Department dated 09.05.1986, declined to ratify such appointments and informed the Director of Rural Development to issue instructions to the District Collector, North Arcot, Vellore, to revert those Junior Assistants who were promoted from the posts of Part -Time Clerks and Record Clerks and to take action against the officers responsible for the irregular appointments. By a subsequent letter vide No.53919 A/EIII/86 -7, Rural Development Department dated 3.12.1986, the Government declined to reconsider the order dated 09.05.1986 and directed that further action to be taken in pursuance of the order dated 09.05.1986 in cases where there is no stay order of this Court.

(3.) After pointing out the above, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that, when the matter stood as above, G.O.Ms.No.963, Rural Development [E7] Department dated 28.11.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.964, Rural Development [E7] Department dated 28.11.1990 were issued containing guidelines for filling up of the vacancies of the Junior Assistants/Rural Welfare Officers Grade II/Cashiers from among (i) Record clerks in Panchayat Unions and (ii) Part -Time/Full -Time Clerks in village panchayats respectively. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission also had given its concurrence in its letter No.267/M3/85 dated 25.10.1990 for appointments made before 1.4.1990 under the later part of Regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954. In view of that, the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, by letter dated 20.10.1993, issued consequential directions to the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, to arrange for regularisation of services of such of those candidates who were promoted as Junior Assistants upto 01.04.1990, except those cases pending before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. While so, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 19.04.1995 in M.A.No.889/95 in T.A.No.519/1993 [W.P.No.10471/1986], issued a direction to the third respondent to continue the applicants as Junior Assistants if their promotion was within the quota of 10% as per G.O.Ms.No.349 P and A.R. Department [Per.B] dated 12.04.1984 subject to approval by the Tamil Nady Public Service Commission, if not already obtained. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai by his proceedings in Pro.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/5372/95 dated 4.12.1995 regularised the services of 10 candidates in the cadre of Junior Assistant and the grievance of the petitioners is that this order was passed in violation of the orders of the Tribunal without verifying whether their promotion is within the 10% quota. The third respondent miserably failed to ascertain or get clarification on the same from the District Collector, North Arcot District, Vellore. Further, their services ought to have been regularised with effect from the date of concurrence of their appointment by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission i.e. on 25.10.1990. Unfortunately, the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, regularised the irregular appointments made in 1985 by the District Collector, Vellore, without following any norms and in violation of the orders of the Tribunal and that too from the date of their appointment as Junior Assistant. The petitioners were not served with the above orders and hence they had no opportunity to challenge the same. By such regularization of their services with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointments as Junior Assistant, their seniority as on 01.01.1992 in the post of Junior Assistants was revised and they were placed in the seniority list above the names of the petitioners and the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, issued orders in Pro.Na.Ka.No.Estt.3/13659/2001 dated 16.08.2004 to this effect. There was no prior notice to the petitioners in this regard. As an adverse consequence, in the impugned seniority list, without even giving any notice to the petitioners, the seniority of the petitioners and the respondents concerned were drastically altered, with the result, the petitioners were pushed down below the respondents. Even though Rule 35(f) of the General Rules for TN State and Subordinate Services is very specific that an application for revision of seniority in a service, class, category or grade has to be made within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such service, class, category or grade, unfortunately, the authorities committed a grave error in entertaining the belated application and unsettling the settled seniority in the guise of rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts. In fact, only on 12.11.1997, a representation was made by R9/K.Balakrishnan and another representation was made by R15/S.Arumugam on 22.05.1997. After readily accepting those representations, the respondents concerned were given the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect to the post they were appointed as Junior Assistant and this has drastically affected the services rendered by the petitioners and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for interference with the impugned order passed by the respondents.