P. MARIAPPA Vs. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a feud between two groups of Jailors, namely, Direct Recruits and Promotees, over fixation of seniority between them, the petitioner herein, who is a promotee Jailor, has come up with these Writ Petitions, challenging the impugned Seniority Lists, wherein, he was ranked below the Direct Recruit Jailors/Respondents-3 to 9 and for a direction to Respondents-1 and 2 to place him above those respondents.

(2.) Mr. S. Chellapandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, highlighting the facts of the case at the first instance, would submit that the petitioner, after his appointment as Assistant Jailor on 01.02.1985, was promoted as Sub Jailor. He was thereafter, further promoted as Deputy Jailor in the year 1997 with posting at Singanallur Prison. While serving in the above cadre at Trichy Central Prison, he was further promoted on provisional basis as Jailor and transferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore, on 07.12.2007. Learned counsel would submit that though the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Jailor in the light of Rule-5 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail Service, arbitrarily, he was awarded only a temporary promotion to the said post. Learned counsel would specifically say that even though the Jail Service Rules obligate the Respondents-1 and 2/Department to draw the Seniority List for every year against the existing vacancies, they never came forward to prepare the Panel for the post of Jailors from 2002 to 2007. While so, it was only by way of G.O.Ms.No.157, Home (Prison-II) Department, dated 17.02.2009, the first respondent sanctioned 1842 permanent posts and, five months thereafter, ie., on 20.07.2009, the said Authority estimated the total vacancy of Jailor as 14 and informed the same to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). However, only 9 posts of Jailor were notified during April, 2009, to be recruited directly through the TNPSC. Through such direct recruitment, Respondent Nos.3 to 9 came to be selected provisionally and appointed as Jailors on 29.07.2010. After completion of training for 6 months, they were regularized only on 28.07.2011. Even prior to them, the service of the petitioner in the post of Jailor was regularized with effect from 07.01.2011. Thus, when the regularization of Respondents-3 to 9 on 28.07.2011 was admittedly later to that of the petitioner, whose service as Jailor was regularised on 07.01.2011, Respondents-1 and 2 ought to have placed the petitioner above Respondents-3 to 9 in the ranking lists. They miserably failed to draw the Panel for the promotional post in Jail Service on the fixed cut-off date, ie., 15th day of Feb., every year. Had they regularly drawn the Panel for the promotional post based on the fixed cutoff date every year, the service of the petitioner would have been regularised even much prior to the appointment of Respondents-3 to 10. That being so, after directly recruiting Respondents-3 to 9 on 29.07.2010, the service of the petitioner was wilfully and deliberately regularized only on 07.01.2011 for the sole purpose of pushing down his name below respondents-3 to 10.

(3.) Learned counsel repeated to highlight that the Panel for the post of Jailor was not prepared from the year 2002-2007 for the reasons best known to Respondents-1 and 2. Although the Jail Service Rules dictate the said respondents to draft the seniority list for every year against the existing vacancy treating the 15th Feb. as the cut-off date, it was only during 2009, the respondents estimated the vacancy for the post of Jailor from the year 2002 to 2007 as 23, out of which, 9 posts were assigned to be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 14 by recruitment from Deputy Jailor. After so estimating, the TNPSC was requested to recruit the eligible candidates for the post of Jailor. It was only based on the request of the Department through a letter dated 20.07.2009, the TNPSC had selected 7 candidates to the post of Jailor and recommended their names to the first respondent for further action. Consequently, based on the recommendation by the TNPSC, on 29.07.2010, the 2nd respondent selected those direct recruits/R3 to R9 for appointment to the post of Jailor. In the appointment proceedings, it was made clear that their appointment would be made permanent only after completion of the training and probation period. While so, the Government issued G.O. Ms.No.965, dated 18.11.2010, in respect of appointment through transfer to the post of Jailor for the year 2007-2008, placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 5. His name was recommended along with 8 others and finally, he was permanently promoted as Jailor on 07.01.2011. 3-A. In the above scenario, the grievance of the petitioner is, when he was promoted and posted as Deputy Jailor in the existing vacancy on 07.12.2007 and subsequently was made permanent in the post of Jailor on 07.01.2011, Respondent Nos.3 to 9, who came to be regularized after the training period only on 28.07.2011, cannot be placed above him. Therefore, the impugned seniority list relating to Additional Superintendent of Prison, showing the name of the petitioner as Junior to Respondents-3 to 9, clearly calls for interference by this Court since the same is unreasonable and unjustified.