S.SARAVANAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 06.02.2018 made by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law by taking note of the letter issued by first respondent made in letter No.6592/Pani.8(1)/2015 dated 25.10.2016 within a stipulated period as that may be fixed by this Court.

(2.) The petitioner having passed SSLC was appointed as a Village Assistant on 16.09.1986 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.06.1995 by G.O.Ms.No.625, issued by the Revenue Department dated 06.07.1995. After his appointment, one Mr.J.Chandra Babu was appointed on 19.07.1998 as Village Assistant and his services were also regularized on the same date i.e., on 01.06.1995 along with the petitioner. When seniority list was prepared, the name of J.Chandra Babu was shown above the petitioner citing reason that his date of birth is earlier to the petitioner's date of birth i.e., 08.06.1965, whereas, the date of birth of J.Chandra Babu is 22.04.1963.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking support from the Letter dated 25.10.2016, issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai, submitted that while fixing the seniority of village servant, Rule 35 (a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules should be followed. A clarification also has been made therein that on the date of regularisation, a junior was appointed subsequent to a senior, although he is elder in age he should be placed only below the person, who has joined the service earlier to the elder in age. The relevant portion is also given as under: