U K SUBRAMANIAM Vs. N MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules have been framed in exercise of power conferred under Clause (3) of Article 187 of the Constitution of India and such Rules came into force on 24. 3. 1955. As per Rule 2 (1), a person is said to be "appointed to the service when, in accordance with the rules applicable, he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of the service or commences the probation or training prescribed for the members thereof. As per Rule 3, the permanent cadre of the service and of each class and category thereof shall be determined by the State Government. As per Rule 4, the service shall consist of the classes and categories of officers specified. Clause II consists of Non-Gazetted Superior posts. Category 1 of such Class II is Section Officers and Category 1a is Section Officer, Delegated Legislation. Category 5 consists of Assistant Section Officers and Category 6 consists of Assistants. As per Rule 6, appointment to the service in different classes and categories shall be made in accordance with the methods and in the order of preference made against each category in Appendix II. For Class II, category 1 Section Officers, the method of appointment is promotion from category 5 of Class II i. e. , promotion from Assistant Section Officers or transfer from Category I-A of Class II, i. e. , Section Officers Delegated Legislation. Similarly for Class II category 1a, i. e. , Section Officer Delegated Legislation, recruitment is by promotion from the category 5 of Class II or by transfer from Category 1 of Class II i. e. , from Section Officer. For Appointment to Assistant Section Officer, which is Category 5 in Class II, the method of appointment is promotion from category 6, 7 or 8 of Class II or by transfer from any other service or by direct recruitment. 1]. It appears that a decision was taken by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 1059 dated 2. 7. 1960 for bifurcation of Legislative Department into Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council Department. Such position continued till the abolition of the Legislative Council with effect from 31. 10. 1986. During the continuance of two separate establishments, Smt. N. Meenakshi, the petitioner in W. P. No. 17084 of 1993 and Smt. B. Saraswathi, the petitioner in W. P. No. 17085 of 1993, were recruited and appointed to the Secretariat of the Legislative Council. Smt. Meenakshi was promoted as Assistant on 22. 4. 1977 and Smt. Saraswathi was promoted as Assistant on 15. 12. 1978. Subsequently, such posts were redesignated as Assistant Section Officers. They were continuing as such in such capacity until the abolition of the Legislative Council with effect from 31. 10. 1986. Similarly the appellants in W. A. Nos. 1202 and 1208 of 1997 had been appointed in similar capacities in the Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly. Since the Legislative Council was to be abolished, a High Level Committee had been constituted to suggest ways and means regarding the employees of the Secretariat of the Legislative Council. By S. O. Ms. No. 244 dated 31. 10. 1986, sanction was accorded for the employment of additional officers and staff to attend to the increase in work and also due to the abolition of the Legislative Council. The relevant portion of the order is to the following effect :-

(2.) THE main contentions raised in the writ petitions are to the effect that the two petitioners had been appointed on regular basis by exercising the power to relax as contemplated under Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules and thereafter they were promoted as Section Officers and the respondents in the writ petitions were admittedly promoted as Section Officers on subsequent dates and, therefore, the two writ petitioners should be treated as seniors, particularly in view of the provisions contained in Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules.

(3.) COUNTER affidavits were filed on behalf of Legislative Assembly Secretariat as well as the private respondents in those writ petitions. 1]. In the counter affidavit filed by Legislative Assembly Secretariat, it was indicated that prior to abolition of the Legislative Council, the officers and staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat were governed by a separate set of Rules called as Tamil Nadu Legislative Council Secretariat Service Rules" and even though the work in both the Secretariats i. e. ,secretariat of the Legislative Assembly and the Secretariat of Legislative Council were similar, the employees were borne in separate cadres. It was indicated that since the Legislative Council was to be abolished, in normal course, the employees of the Secretariat of Legislative Council would have faced retrenchment, but a decision was taken to absorb them in different organizations and many of the employees were thus absorbed in the Assembly Secretariat. At that stage, it was decided in the High Level Committee to keep persons absorbed in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat as a separate unit and it was further decided that the posts were to be created for accommodating the officers of 'b' wing (Those who were to be absorbed in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat ). It was further indicated :-