A CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents.

(2.) IT is stated that the petitioners are working as Deputy Block Development Officers in the Panchayat Union at Dharmapuri District. The District Collector, Dharmapuri, had assigned the seniority of the petitioners, as well as the seniority of the respondents 3 to 7, in the cadre of Extension Officers. In G.O.Ms.No.587, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 12.4.84, the Government of Tamilnadu had issued special rules for the Tamilnadu Panchayat Development Subordinate Service, which prescribes certain qualifications for appointment to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer. The next avenue for promotion from the post of Extension Officer is that of Deputy Block Development Officer. The petitioners had come into the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, during the year 1994. However, the respondents had prepared a panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer (Extension), as on 1.3.94, by an order in Roc.76755/94/K1, without including the names of the petitioners in the said panel, only on the ground that they had not acquired the service qualifications prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.587, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 12.4.84. The delay caused by the respondents in issuing the posting orders to the petitioners, to enable them to acquire the necessary service qualifications, should not prejudice the interest of the petitioners while they were being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer. The petitioners had preferred an appeal to the respondents to include their names in the panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, as on 1.3.94, even though they had not completed 12 months in the category of Extension Officer (Panchayat). By the proceedings, in R.Dis.70755/94/K1, dated 31.12.94, the District Collector, Dharmapuri, had rejected the petition preferred by the petitioners stating that the list, dated 15.9.94, had been prepared only as per the rules in force. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred an appeal to the Director of Rural Development, the first respondent herein, stating that the petitioners ought to have been promoted as Deputy Block Development Officers, in spite of their lack of service qualifications. No order was passed by the first respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioners. While so, the second respondent was granting promotions to the respondents 3 to 7, without considering the claims made by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners have filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4611 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28115 of 2006.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had placed before this Court, an order, dated 9.10.2006, made in W.P.No.18501 of 2006, and an order, dated 24.10.2007, made in W.P.No.12362 of 2007, wherein, it has been held that the petitioners were entitled to be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, along with the others who had acquired the qualifications prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.585, Rural development and Local Administration Department, dated 12.4.84. Since the petitioners were not given a chance to acquire the necessary qualifications, due to the delay caused by the first and the second respondents, in giving them the appropriate postings, it cannot be a handicap for the petitioners for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer.