M MEENAKSHISUNDARAM Vs. REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL; DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM REVENUE DIVISION; TAHSILDAR, THIRUVADANAI TALUK RAMANATHAPURAM REVENUE DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed praying for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, confirmed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 2878 of 1992 by order dated 29.9.2003 and to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of appointment on 21.1.1994 with all consequential benefits from thereon.

(2.) The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Karnam on 12.12.1977 by way of temporary appointment for Velanadu Group for a period of three months with effect from 12.12.1997. The appointment was thereafter extended under orders dated 27.5.1978 for a further period upto 31.5.1978. Thereafterwards, by order dated 8.6.1978, the petitioner's services was not extended, but was relieved on and from 31.5.1978. It is stated that the petitioner obtained a certificate of Karnam's survey training as early as 1979, and even on the date of initial appointment temporarily as a Karnam, he had passed the Pre-University Certificate in the year 1969 itself.

(3.) The hereditary system of village administration by the Village Munsif and Village Karnam was abolished in Ordinance 14/80, followed by the Act. With the result, on and from 14.11.1980, the old system of hereditary Village Karnam and Village Munsif post was abolished and all holders of the post were relieved thereon. The validity of the ordinance was upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. However, an undertaking was given on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court that all Ex-Village Officials who had been holding the office as on 14.11.1980 and had lost the job on account of the ordinance would be given appointment as Village Administrative Officers in the new set up, provided, they had the requisite minimum general educational qualification and had not attained the age of superannuation. It is stated by the petitioner that since he had worked in the leave vacancies as Karnam even prior to the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of part-time Village Officers Act, 1981, he was called for interview by the Collector of Ramanathapuram through his letter dated 9.7.1991. The petitioner was the successful candidate and was appointed as Village Administrative Officer of Veeravanur Group, Paramakudi Taluk, under order dated 2.8.1991 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram Revenue District, Ramanathapuram, the third respondent in the writ petition. However, the services of the petitioner was terminated under orders dated 20.3.1992 by the second respondent, namely, the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram. The order of the second respondent, however, stated that the services of the petitioner appointed temporarily was terminated as per Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service (General) Rules. Aggrieved of the termination without assigning any reason, the petitioner moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 2878 of 1992, praying for an order to quash the second respondent's order of termination and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any of the vacancies under their control. By an interim order dated 19.5.1993, the Tribunal directed that if there were vacancies available and persons similarly placed and junior to the petitioner were appointed and continuing in the post, then the petitioner could be appointed in any one of the vacancies temporarily. By order dated 21.1.1994, once again the third respondent herein appointed the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer in Pullur Group, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. Ultimately, by order dated 29.9.2003, the Tribunal, however, dismissed O.A.No. 2878 of 1992, taking a view that the petitioner had not acted as Village Munsif even for a single day, though the petitioner had claimed that he had passed the Karnam test and hence eligible to be appointed as Village Karnam or Village Munsif, it was not a ground to grant the petitioner the appointment as per the new Government Order. Consequently, it held that the appointment given was a wrong order which had been set right correctly by the third respondent herein. Aggrieved of the said view taken by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition contending that the order of termination was unreasonable and contrary to Clause 3 of G.O.Ms.No. 954, Revenue Department dated 16.10.1997, which provided that even temporary Part-time Village Officers who had worked for a short period prior to 14.11.1980 possessing the required minimum qualification should be given appointment in any existing or future vacancy as per seniority. The minimum educational qualification required was a pass in S.S.L.C. examination and those Village Officers who held office on 14.11.1980 should have at least subsequently passed this examination as per G.O.Ms.No. 1287, Revenue Department, dated 6.7.1988 and sponsored through the employment exchange. Considering the fact that the petitioner, even as early as 1969, had passed the Pre-University Examination and had worked as a Karnam on a temporary basis, the petitioner ought to have been considered for regular appointment. The petitioner also submitted that similarly situated persons who were junior to the petitioner were appointed as Village Administrative Officers and their services were regularised subsequently; hence, the action taken against the petitioner was arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.