GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT SC ST AND M B C EMPLOYEES GENERAL WELFARE SANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BACKWARD Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, Commercial Tax department, and Inspector General of Registration, aggrieved by Common Order dated 28-2-22005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 11296 to 11298 of 2003 etc. , batch have filed the above Review Applications under Order 47, Rule 1 and 2, of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 114 C. P. C. Since the issues and contentions raised in all these matters are one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.

(2.) HEARD Mr. N. R. Chandran, learned Advocate General for the petitioners in all the Review Applications; Mr. K. Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel for 1st Respondent in all Applications; Mr. P. Jayaraman, Senior counsel for 2nd respondent i n R. A. No. 65/2005; Mr. R. Rangaramanujam for R-4 and R-6 in r. A. Nos. 65 and 67/2005 respectively; Mrs. G. Devi for R-5 in r. A. No. 65/2005; Mr. V. Vijayashankar for R-3 to 8 and R-10 to R-51 in r. A. No. 66/2005; Mr. R. Saravanakumar for R-52, R-53 in R. A. No. 66/2005 and for R-7 and R-8 in R. A. No. 67/2005; Mr. V. Ravikumar for R-54 and R-55 in r. A. No. 66/2005; and Mr. R. Yasholvaradhan for R1 to R-4 in R. A. No. 67/2005.

(3.) TAMIL Nadu Backward Class Officials Association (applicant), aggrieved by a letter dated 06-10-97 of the Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and hindu Religious Department, Chennai filed O. A. No. 9044/1997 before the Tamil nadu Ad ministrative Tribunal. Apart from the said Association, others have also filed similar applications questioning the letter of the Government dated 23-2-99 issued by the Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare department. Some of the Assistan ts working in the Registration Department have challenged the panel prepared for appointment to the post of Sub registrar Grade II and published in Government letters dated 3-12-97, 3-6-99 and 24-9-99. The grievance of the applicants before the Tribunal was that the department has provided reservation while appointing Assistant Commercial Tax officers ("actos" in short) from among the Assistants. The Assistants belong to Ministerial Service and they have to be appointed by transfer of service as actos which is a Subordinate Service. The post of ACTO carries higher scale of pay with greater responsibility. Therefore, it was contended that it is nothing but promotion so far as Assistants are concerned. It was their claim that the Assistants who are juniors to some of the applicants have been promoted as ACTOs which is illegal and this has been made possible because the government has followed the reservation policy, while granting promotion to them. It was their further contention that such reserv ation in promotion could not be provided in view of the direction of the Supreme Court in the indira Sawhney and R. K. Sabarwal cases, where it has been categorically held that no reservation can be provided in promotion. Some of the applicants who were w orking as Assistants in the Registration Department have filed applications seeking to set aside Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu registration Subordinate Service and proceedings dated 23-2-99 of the secretary to Government, Backward Class and Most Backward Class Welfare department. The said Rule 5 provides for reservation for Backward Class and most Backward Class in recruitment by transfer and also by direct recruitment. The main contention of the applicants was that reservation is not p ermissible in the matter of appointment to a higher post in respect of Backward Class and most Backward Class and that the Government is wrong in proceeding to make appointments to the post of Sub Registrar Grade II by adopting the principle of reservati on. It was also their claim that even though the appointment is by way of transfer of service, it actually amounts to promotion and therefore, there can be no reservation in the case of promotions.