A. SAMUEL Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL CADET CORPS DIRECTORATE, TAMIL NADU, PUDUCHERY & ANDAMAN NICOBAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash Letter No. 1325/1/SC dated 30.10.2013 rejecting his representation of the petitioner to fix the seniority above the Respondent No. 3 and consequential direction of the Respondents to fix his seniority above the rank of 3rd respondent.

(2.) As it appears, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant at 4 TN Girls Battalion NCC, Trichy on 21.12.1983 on compassionate ground. He having completed his probation and also the departmental test, in due course promoted to the post of Superintendent with effect from 01.09.2003. The Respondent No. 3 who was subsequently appointed as Junior Assistant to him, was shown as senior in the rank of Superintendent in the revised seniority list published for the post of Superintendent on 01.04.2012. The petitioner, as such, made representation against the same on 16.07.2013, but the same was rejected vide the impugned letter No. 1325/1/SC dated 30.10.2013 on the ground that the same has been made beyond the period of three years, hence cannot be entertained in view of the limitation prescribed in Rule-35(f) of the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). It is the case of the petitioner that since he is senior to the respondent No. 3 and the fair seniority list was published on 21.07.2010 and he had filed the representation on 30.10.2013, as such, rejection of his prayer indicating the fact that the representation was made beyond the period of limitation was illegal and arbitrary and, as such the same is liable to be quashed and the respondent No. 1 be directed to fix a seniority above the 3rd respondent.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent disputing the fact that the petitioner is senior to the respondent no. 3. According to the first respondent, the petitioner being appointed on compassionate ground while the selection list prepared by the TNPSC for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant was valid and the respondent no. 3 having been appointed out of the said selection list, the petitioner even appointed earlier to respondent no. 3 ranks junior to the respondent no. 3 in view of the Government Letter No. 68208/U1/80 of Labour and Employment Department dated 09.07.1982. Accordingly, after his promotion along with respondent no. 3 and others to the post of Superintendent in the year 2003, he was shown as a Junior to respondent no. 3 in the draft seniority list prepared in the year 2008 in respect of persons appointed from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2007. The said draft seniority list was circulated by letter No. 1325/1/SC/superintendent dated 04.11.2008 to all serving Superintendents including the petitioners. The petitioner made no grievance against his placement in the said seniority list, though he acknowledged receipt of the same on 17.12.2008. Thereafter, a fair seniority list was prepared on 21.07.2010. Therefore, the rejection of his prayer to revisit the seniority list at belated stage is devoid of merit inasmuch as the same is beyond the period prescribed under Rule 35(f) of the Rules.