M RAVINDRAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 1919/2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the first respondent dated 26. 4. 2001 issued in G. O. (D) No. 351, Home (Pol. V) Department. Now, the same has been transferred to the file of this Hon'ble Court and renumbered as W. P. No. 32807 of 2005.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a steno-typist on a temporary basis with effect from 2. 9. 1982. In the year 1984, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22. 9. 1984 absorbing all the candidates, who were working on temporary basis as on 25. 6. 1984. Basing on this, the petitioner's services were also regularised in the cadre of steno-typist with effect from 25. 6. 1984. That apart, the petitioner was selected as a typist in the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in November, 1983 and the results of the said examination was published in the year 1985. Based on this, by order dated 3. 8. 1985, the petitioner was appointed as a typist with instruction to join duty within 15 days failing which the appointment order will be cancelled. But, by representation dated 18. 8. 1985, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents that since he is already working as a steno-typist permanently, he is not joining in the post of typist. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowedto continue as a steno-typist. In the year 1987, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 548, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per. J) Department dated 10. 6. 1987. The candidates, who have been absorbed by virtue of G. O. Ms. 996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22. 9. 1984, will be ranked below the candidates, who have been selected and appointed in pursuance of the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in November, 1983. Basing on this, the petitioner was assigned rank No. 270 in the seniority list, which was issued in the proceedings of the Director General of Police dated 23. 3. 1991 pursuant to the above said Government Order. After a lapse of 9 years, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27. 1. 2000 with a request to fix his seniority based on his selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or taking into account the date of his initial appointment, ie. , 2. 9. 1982. But, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 26. 4. 2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed O. A. No. 1919/2002 and the same has been transferred to the file of this Honourable Court and renumbered as W. P. No. 32807 of 2005.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner was appointed on 2. 9. 1982, by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 548 dated 10. 6. 1987, he has been placed below the candidates, who have joined long after the petitioner. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as a typist by letter dated 3. 8. 1985, since he was not aware of the fact that if he opts to continue by virtue of his earlier absorption in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 996 dated 22. 9. 1984, he will be placed below the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission pursuant to the examination conducted in November, 1983, the petitioner had opted to continue as a steno-typist. As such, for no fault on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be penalised by pushing him down below his juniors in the matter of seniority. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the petitioner is in continuous service from 1982, without any break, his service should have been regularised with effect from 2. 9. 1982 ie. , the date on which he was appointed as a steno-typist on a temporary basis. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for no fault of the petitioner, he has been given promotion to the post of Assistant only in the year 2002. If his service with effect from 2. 9. 1982 had been taken into account, he could have got his promotion as an Assistant as early as 1990. Based on this, the learned counsel contended that the impugned order of the first respondent has to be quashed and the petitioner's service in the cadre of steno-typist should be regularised with effect from 2. 9. 1982 and he must be awarded consequential seniority and promotion.