G P PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. C O ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (W. A. No. 144 of 1987)-Fourth respondent in W. P. No. 1763 of 1980 is the appellant. The writ petitioner and the three other respondents therein, are the respondents herein. (Ranking of parties as in writ petition ).

(2.) PETITIONER filed the writ petition to quash the order of third respondent dated 8. 8. 1979 in and by which the seniority of the fourth respondent was revised in the comprehensive seniority list of Motor Vehicle inspectors Grade-I. The impugned order was issued based on the order of government in G. O. Ms. No. 1890, Home (Transport II) dated 27. 7. 1979. In the 1972 list, petitioner was ranked as No. 39, and fourth respondent as No. 51. By virtue of the impugned order, he became senior to petitioner by 12 places. Hence, when he filed the writ petition, the learned Judge allowed it on two grounds viz. , (1) the seniority assigned by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the lower category will not be relevant for the next higher category, and (2) the revision of seniority done without opportunity to the affected persons offends principles of natural justice. Aggrieved against this decision, this appeal is preferred by fourth re-spondent.

(3.) . Any fixation of seniority other than the ranking given by the Commission would not be valid. Deliberately, for years together, the appointing authority has avoided preparation of seniority list from time to time. How Government could have ever allowed an appointing authority like deputy Transport Commissioner to avoid his statutory duty of preparing seniority list from time to time is baffling. It is by such lapses committed by government, it results in unsettled service conditions for Government Servants. Hence, in the instant case, in the background of what has been referred to above, the seniority in Grade I category could be only the same seniority as applicable to Grade II category, and therefore, the comprehensive seniority list prepared in 1972 is contrary to Service Rules. The only benefit a junior in Grade II category derives based on merit and ability, is the advantage of holding the promotional post earlier, and have the attendant benefits thereto. For the purposes of seniority, whenever his senior attains the requisite merit and gets promoted; then he would secure his rightful place in Grade I seniority. There is nothing unusual in such a procedure. In the Secretariat service, as pointed out at page 9 of Note file produced by respondents 1 to 3, the seniority fixed by the Service Commission is not denied to a Junior assistant, who qualifies to be promoted to the category of Assistant, after his junior has passed the Departmental Test. Hence, the view taken by the learned judge that the seniority fixed by the Service Commission could have no applicability to Grade I, is not correct.