T.SEETHA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants in W.A.(MD) No.942 are the second, third and fourth Petitioners in the Writ Petition and the Appellant in W.A.(MD)No. 965 of 2019 is the first Petitioner in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by the Appellants herein, i.e. in the above mentioned two Writ Appeals, and the 31st Respondent in W.A. No.942 of 2019 to quash G.O.Ms.No.93 dtd. 20/2/2015 (the Impugned G.O.) and consequently follow Annexure IX read with Rule 38(b) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules (the Ministerial Service Rules) for the preparation of the seniority list of promotees and direct recruits from the year 2011 onwards before promoting any candidate to the post of Deputy Tahsildar with all service and monetary benefits. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by Order dtd. 28/6/2018 whereby the impugned G.O. was upheld. The said Order is impugned in these Writ Appeals.

(2.) The primary and ancillary questions that arise for consideration in these Writ Appeals are whether the Impugned G.O. is liable to be quashed, whether the Impugned G.O. has the effect of amending Clause 8(v) of Annexure IX to the Ministerial Services Rules and, if not, whether the requirement of undergoing training for one year and eight months in the office of the Collector continues to be binding as on date. In order to consider these questions, it is necessary to examine the relevant rules before examining the Impugned G.O. Rule 38 (b) (ii) of the Ministerial Service Rules provides that direct recruitment of assistants in the revenue department shall be done as per Annexure IX notwithstanding anything stated in the said Rules. The said Annexure IX specifies the training requirements for assistants, who are appointed by direct recruitment. Clause 8(v) thereof specifies that after undergoing training as a firka revenue inspector for two years, the assistants concerned shall undergo training for the next one year and eight months in the collector's office. By virtue of the Impugned G.O., this requirement is proposed to be relaxed by providing that the training may be undergone in any of the offices of the revenue department as an alternative to undergoing training in the office of the collector. The said relaxation is challenged in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeals arising there from.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 942 of 2018, Mr. R. Singaravelan, made oral submissions and also submitted a written brief. He opened his oral arguments by submitting that service law does not recognise the concept of calendar year but only recognises the concept of panel year. He further submitted that the crucial date for the purposes of the panel year varies from service to service and that the panel is required to be drawn every year but this is not being done. In order to emphasise that it is necessary to draw the panel every year, he referred to the first proviso to Rule 4 (a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (the TNSSS Rules) and Sec. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (the TNGS Conditions of Service Act). He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan (2010) 4 SCC 290 wherein, in the context of Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which mandates that ordinarily a cadre review should be done every five years, it was held that the right to be considered for promotion is virtually a fundamental right and that the legitimate expectation, in that regard, was defeated due to the delay in carrying out cadre review. As regards seniority, he submitted that the seniority list is different from the panel or list of approved candidates for promotion and that this list should be drawn at least three months before the crucial date in respect of the relevant promotion post so as to ensure that the seniority list is available in advance and the panel or list of approved candidates may be drawn after reckoning eligibility and suitability.