S RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed Original Application No.1760 of 1994 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.234, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 16.3.1985, to set aside the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently prayed for a direction to include his name in the panel of District Registrar for the year 1993-94, with due to his seniority and for other monetary benefits.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he joined the Government service in the year 1960, as Junior Assistant in the Registration Department and was promoted in 1968, as Assistant and thereafter, as Sub-Registrar Grade-II in the year 1978. He was included in the temporary panel of Sub Registrar Grade-I and posted as such on 25.02.1986. The regular panel of Sub Registrar Grade-I was not drawn for the year 1986-87 and when the panel for the year 1987-88 was drawn on 12.4.1988, the name of the petitioner was not included. The petitioner's appeal for inclusion of his name was rejected and aggrieved by the same, he has filed O.A.NO.5326 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner's name was included in the panel for the year 1990-91 and posted as Sub Registrar Grade-I at Poonamallee. The Tribunal, disposed of the Original Application, by order dated 3.11.1993 and directed that the petitioner should be included in the panel of Sub Registrar Grade-I for the year 1987-88, at the appropriate place, with reference to his seniority and that he should be deemed to have been promoted from the date, on which, his immediate junior in service was included in the panel.

(3.) ASSAILING G.O.Ms.NO.234, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 16.3.1985, the petitioner has submitted that when no age limit is fixed for promotion to higher posts in the Registration Department, prescribing a maximum age, for inclusion in the panel, for the post of District Registrar, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner has further submitted that he had acquired the prescribed qualification for the post of District Registrar, even before the completion of 55 years and had the department drawn the panel every year, his name would have been included before the completion of 55 years. He has further submitted that non inclusion of his name in the panel is purely due to the fault of the department. Consequent to suspension of some officers facing disciplinary action, voluntary retirement, etc., the number of vacancies were increased enabling the juniors to qualify themselves for promotion, just at that time when the petitioner was denied of promotion, and for these reasons, the petitioner would be compelled to serve under his juniors. It is further submitted that for the next promotion such as Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Inspector General of Registration, Additional Director of Chits, no maximum age limit is fixed. Therefore, prescribing of a maximum age limit for promotion to the post of District Registrar is unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice.