S MANJUNATHAN Vs. N VADIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to permission granted by this Court, appellants/third parties/Revenue Assistants at the District Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai, had moved Writ Appeal seeking setting aside of the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24117 of 2013 dated 29.08.2013.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 preferred W.P.No.24117 of 2013 contending that having been selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, they had joined as typists at Tiruvannamalai District on 10.07.2009, completed departmental tests and also training offered at Tamil Nadu Land Survey Training Centre, Orathanadu, on 09.03.2012 and 13.03.2012 and thus successfully completed probation. Contending that they had, on completion of service of 2 years as typists, became eligible for promotion as Assistants as their probation had been declared on 18.01.2011 and they had passed the departmental test as prescribed in service conditions and had undergone training at the Tamil Nadu Land Survey Training Centre, Orathanadu, before the crucial date i.e., 15.03.2012. They sought quash of third respondent (in W.P.No.24117 of 2013) proceedings in No.N.K.A3/38896/12 dated 21.05.2013, which informed petitioners as ineligible for promotion to the post of Assistants for the year 2013 since they did not possess the necessary service qualification as Junior Assistants. Respondents 1 to 3/Writ Petitioners had contended that in other districts others similarly placed like themselves had been appointed as Assistants while they, though having attained eligibility even in the year 2012, were not included in the panel for the year 2013 since they had not undergone the necessary training as Junior Assistants as required under Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. Contending that service qualification cannot be equated to qualification of pass in a departmental test and that while pass in a departmental test may be in the hands of individual but the posting of individual as trainee was not so, such action being in the hands of the authorities, respondents 1 to 3 had sought relief.

(3.) Learned Single Judge, under orders dated 29.08.2013, had disposed of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission itself. The order under challenge is brief and is reproduced hereunder: