S JACOB Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issues in these writ petitions are inter-linked, they are being disposed of by the following Common Order.

(2.) DIRECT recruit Assistants in Madras City Revenue establishment have preferred O. A. No. 204/91 before the Tamil Nadu administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104 praying for a direction to the Government-Revenue department, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration and the Collector of Madras to consider and promote them to the cadre of Deputy tahsildars from the date on which they completed five years of service as direct recruit Assistants and placing them above 1983 panel of Deputy Tahsildars and giving them service benefits.

(3.) THE post of Assistant in the Revenue Department is governed by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. THE said post is filled by two sources, one by direct recruitment and other by promotion from Junior assistants. THE post of Deputy Tahsildar is governed by Tamil Nadu Revenue subordinate Service Rules as per which the said post of Deputy Tahsildar is filled by recruitment by transfer from the post of Assistants in Tamil Nadu ministerial Service, Office of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration (CRA), Office of the Commissioner of Land Administration, Secretariat etc. By g. O. Ms. No. 884 Revenue Department dated 12-8-1992, orders were issued to give preference to the directly recruited Assistants in the Ministerial Services by placing the selected Assistants on the top of the list for the appointment as deputy Tahsildar, which is borne by Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service rules. G. O. Ms. No. 133 Revenue Department dated 07-02-1995 was issued amending the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules to give effect to the decision of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 884 Revenue Department dated 12-08-1992. THE promotee Assistants filed Original Applications as referred above before the Administrative Tribunal to quash the said orders. THE tribunal has allowed their Original Applications and quashed the above said government Orders as vitiated on the following three grounds: (a) It is inconsistent with Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu ministerial Service Rules. (b) It is inconsistent with Rule 5 (f) of the Tamil Nadu revenue Subordinate Service Rules. (c) It is bad for giving retrospective effect with effect from 1978 as it affects vested right. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, initially they filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which initially entertained the same and passed interim orders, subsequently, directed the State to go before the High Court which necessitated them to file W. P. Nos. 27173 and 27174 of 2003.