B. MUTHURAMALINGAM Vs. SECRETARY, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to treat GSR. 929E Department of Personnel and Training dtd. 30/12/2022 of the first respondent with retrospective effect from 6/6/2019.

(2.) The petitioner joined as Assistant in Group-II Services in the Revenue Department of the State of Tamilnadu on 4/11/1989. He was included in the panel of District Revenue Officers for the year 2012 with effect from 22/2/2013. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of District Revenue Officer and now he is working as District Revenue Officer. The Post of District Revenue officer is one of the feeder category for promotion to the Tamilnadu Cadre(State Service) to the Indian Administrative Services. Further, the criteria is that the candidate must not have completed 56 years of age at the time of year of review of cadre. The first respondent carries out cadre strength review of States with retrospective effect and ensures that any person who otherwise eligible, misses out on promotion due crossing the age on the date of notification, will still be considered eligible for promotion to IAS, IPS or IFS cadre. Insofar as the State of Tamilnadu is concerned, the first respondent notified GSR 383E dtd. 6/6/2004, issued the Tamilnadu Indian Administrative Services (fixation of cadre strength). In accordance with the mandate of Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the composition of cadre strength for the State of Tamilnadu was to be re-examined. It ordinarily mandatory for the first respondent to re-examine the strength of each such cadre in consultation with the second respondent at intervals of every five years. However it was not carried out at the interval of every five years. Therefore, the petitioner would be materially affected for promotion to the post of IAS cadre.

(3.) Mr.K.Venkataramani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the rare and rarest case, the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the cadre of IAS in the year 2019 itself since the petitioner was originally inducted as Assistant in the Revenue Department and reached the stage of District Revenue Officer which is feeder category for promotion to the cadre of IAS. Unfortunately, the first respondent failed to review the cadre strength once in five years and as such, the petitioner had lost his opportunity for promotion to the cadre of IAS. In fact, only on filing the writ petition for review of cadre strength of the year 2019, the first respondent now reviewed the cadre strength and passed order thereby increased the strength of IAS cadre for State of Tamilnadu. However, it was given effect prospectively i.e. from the date of its notification instead of the year 2019. In fact, in other States, the cadre strength review was done only retrospectively. However, insofar as the State of Tamilnadu is concerned, the first respondent reviewed the cadre strength and was given effect from the date of notification. The delay caused by the respondents directly affected the promotional avenues of the petitioner and he is put to work under his juniors for no fault on his part. In accordance with the Rule 14(2) of the IAS Service Cadre Rules, it is mandatory for the first respondent to conduct re-examination of cadre composition in each state with consultation with the second respondent every five years. The last cadre review was carried out on 6/6/2014 and therefore, the notification in GSR.929(E) dtd. 30/12/2022 ought to have been issued with effect from 6/6/2019. He further submitted that the legitimate expectation of the petitioner to be considered for promotion has been defeated because of the undue delay in carrying out the cadre composition re-examination in the State of Tamilnadu. If review of 2019 is not given retrospective effect, it will not no longer be a cadre review of 2019, but instead be a cadre review of the year 2022. The demitting fiction of creating the additional post must necessarily also date back to the year of review.