C P RAVICHANDRAN Vs. P RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE seemingly never ending controversy revolving round the question of inter se seniority in the Forensic Science Department is the subject matter of all these writ petitions.

(2.) THE background facts are as follows:- It appears that during 1959, the Chemical Examiners Laboratory under the control of Medical Department and the Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue and the Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department are stated as -State Forensic Science Laboratory- and governed by the Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No,912, Home Department, dated 28.3.1964 for Madras State Forensic Science Subordinate Service. Subsequently, in 1967, the State Forensic Science Laboratory was bifurcated to Chemical Examiners Laboratory functioning independently with Special Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1611 dated 16.6.1971 and State Forensic Science Laboratory functioning under the Police Department with Special Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1306 dated 14.5.1971. By G.O.Ms.No,33, Home Department, dated 4.1.1971, State Forensic Science Laboratory was bifurcated as Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department and Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue. Subsequently, in 1973, there was a merger of Chemical Examiners Laboratory and Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, which became known as -Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory-. During 1980, there was a further merger of THE Prohibition & Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue and Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department and continued to be known as Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory. In 1984, this integrated unit was renamed as Forensic Sciences Department. THE Government b G.O.Ms.No,2790, Home Department, dated 3.10.1986, issued Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Subordinate Service. In the interregnum, the Government had sanctioned number of posts temporarily in various cadres and number of recruitments in the feeder category of Scientific Assistant Grade II were made without any specific service rules. Simultaneously, Scientific Assistant Grade II already working in the Forensic Science Laboratory had also been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I. However, promotions had been given by following the approved list at the time of recruitment in the feeder category and also following the rule of reservation. Till November, 1982, almost the entire staff working in the Department was on temporary basis. THE Government had issued a set of directions to regularise such temporary service retrospectively vide Government Letter No,48038/FS/82-6, Home Department, dated 2.11.1982. and accordingly temporary staff had been regularised. Draft inter se seniority for all the staff was published by Director's Memo No.A1/18652/86 dated 26.2.1987 and all the persons were invited to file their representations. After receipt of such representations, a revised seniority list was published on 3.11.1987 as per Director's Proceedings No.A1/18491/87 dated 3.11.1987. During 1993, there was some problem in grouping various divisions in the Department with different subjects such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology and large number of representations have been made. THE Government through D.O. Lr.No,22429/Pol/93-1 Home (Pol-16) Department dated 30.4.1993, suggested the Director to form a Committee under the Chairmanship of the then Deputy Director to -study the practical difficulties experienced by the staff with present system of grouping of Divisions in the Forensic Sciences Department and also some lacunae in the Service Rules-. Accordingly, a Committee was formed as per Director's Memorandum No.A1/6732/93 dated 21.6.1993. THEreafter, the Director issued Memorandum No.A1/6732/93 dated 25.6.1993, wherein revision of seniority was also included as one of the subjects and based on such subsequent circular, the Chairman of the Committee sent notice to all the staff to send representation regarding grievance in the seniority. On the basis of the recommendation made by such Committee, the then Director issued a fresh seniority list as per Office Order No,77/95 dated 23.6.1995, wherein objections / representations were invited within a stipulated period. At such stage, representations had been made by several persons. In such seniority list, instead of taking the date of joining of Scientific Assistant Grade I as the relevant starting point of seniority, seniority in the feeder category,namely, Scientific Assistant Grade II, has been taken as the base. While such representations were still pending and matter had not been finalised, the Director issued a panel of promotion to the post of Scientific Officer in G.O.Ms.No,7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999. This G.O.Ms.No,7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999 became the starting point of the present set of litigations. 2.1 One P. Rajan filed O.A.No,443 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as -the Tribunal-) for quashing G.O.Ms.No,7 & 8, dated 4.1.1999, so far as Respondents 3 to 9 in such applications were concerned and to extend all benefits, service and monetary, by according appropriate placement over and above the Respondents 3 to 9 with effect from 13.7.1983 as Scientific Assistant Grade I and other benefits of promotion. One A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, filed O.A.No,4155 of 1999 against R. Bhanumathy, M. Karpagam, S. Geethalkakshmi, K.V.K. Radhamani, M. Radhika, G. Lakshmi, V. Karpagam, M. Gomathi, V.T. Vimali, M.S. Hameetha Begam and P. Kirubakaran, Respondents 3 to 13 therein, for quashing the Proceedings issued the Director in Pro.No.A1/5772/95, dated 23.6.1995 and the Government Letter No,23203/Pol.XVI/99-2, dated 8.6.1999 and to promote him to the post of Scientific Officer with effect from the date when his immediate junior was promoted and above the Respondents 3 to 13 therein. H. Balashanmugham filed O.A.No,6831 of 1999 claiming similar relief. M. Udayakumar filed O.A.Nos.304 of 2001 and 2558 of 2003 and C. Ravindran filed O.A.Nos.326 of 2001 and 2557 of 2003. O.A.Nos.304 & 326 of 2001 had been filed challenging G.O.Ms.No,7 and 8, dated 4.1.1999, whereas O.A.Nos.2557 and 2558 of 2003 had been filed challenging the reversion of seniority made in 2002. THE Tribunal by common order dated 9.12.2003, allowed all such Original Applications and quashed the impugned Government Orders and the seniority list and directed the Government to fix the seniority of the applicant by taking into account the date of appointment as Scientific Assistant Grade I. It was further directed that if any of the juniors of the applicant had been promoted as Scientific Officer, the applicant should be promoted from the date on which his juniors were promoted. 2.2 C.P. Ravichandran, Respondent No,3 in O.A.No,443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.12751 of 2004 and an order of interim stay was passed on 30.4.2004, which was made absolute on 13.9.2004 in WPMP.No.14854 of 2004 in WP.No.12751 of 2004. 2.3 P. Subbulakshmi, Respondent No,4 in such O.A.No,443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19859 of 2004. M. Karpagam, Respondent No.9 in such O.A.No,443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19860 of 2004. K. Hemavathy, Respondent No,5 in such O.A.No,443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19861 of 2004. R. Banumathi, Respondent No,6 in such O.A.No,443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19862 of 2004. THE other respondents, namely, E. Ezhilarasi and K.P. Devarajan, apparently have not filed any writ petition challenging the order passed in O.A.No,443 of 1999. M. Karpagam, G. Lakshmi and V.T. Vimali, who were Respondent Nos.4, 8 and 11 in O.A.No,4155 of 1999 filed by A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, have filed W.P.Nos.21204 of 2007 against the very same order pertaining to O.A.No,4155 of 1999.

(3.) C.P. Ravichandran has filed W.P.No,44369 of 2006 by challenging the seniority list dated 25.10.2006. The very same petitioner has also filed W.P.No.16388 of 2007 against G.O.Ms.No,473 dated 2.4.2007. One Murali Krishnan, who was not a party to O.A.No,443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No,33893 of 2007 challenging G.O.Ms.No,473 Home (Police 18) Department, dated 23.4.2007, issued by the Government on the basis of the Proceedings of the Director, Forensic Sciences Department, dated 9.10.2006 and 25.10.2006 and for a consequential direction to fix the inter se seniority among the persons working in the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Services on the basis of date of their entry into service, completion of probation and regularization in the feeder category of Scientific Assistant Grade II. During pendency of all these writ petitions, certain persons were promoted as Assistant Directors making it clear that such promotion was subject to result of W.P.No.16388 of 2007. Muralikrishna had also filed W.P.No,36679 of 2007 challenging promotional order issued by the Director in Proceedings No.A1/41364/2007/O.O.No.184/2007 dated 5.11.2007, based on G.O.Rt.No,2409 Home (Pol.18) Department, dated 2.11.2007 so far as the Respondents 4 to 8 therein with a consequential direction to promote him as Assistant Director as per the original panel of seniority list of Scientific Officers arrived by G.O.Ms.No.1224 dated 7.9.1999. However, since subsequently Contempt Applications were filed, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No,425 Home (Police 18) Department, dated 5.4.2008 and the Director issued Office Order No,37/2008 dated 8.4.2008 reverting such persons from the post of Assistant Director to the former post of Scientific Officer. Mrs.S. Vijaya, Mr.P. Ettiyappan, Mr.P. Ravishankar, Mr.V. Mohan, Mr.K.P. Devarajan, Mrs.R. Vasantha, Mr.A.R. Mohan, Mrs. Kamalakshi Krishnamoorthy, Mr.V. Kanagasabapathy, Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy and Mr.N. Kalimuthan have filed W.P.Nos.8955 to 8965 of 2008 respectively challenging the order of reversion reverting them from the post of Assistant Director to Scientific Officer, wherein an order of interim stay had been passed thus staying the order of reversion. C.P. Ravichandran, K. Hemavathy, R. Banumathy, who are the petitioners in W.P.Nos.12751, 19861 and 19862 of 2004 respectively have got themselves impleaded as Respondents 3 to 6 and similarly one V. Geethalakshmi, who apparently has not filed any writ petition against the order relating to O.A.No,443 of 1999, had got herself impleaded as Respondent No,6. Subsequently, Mrs.V.K. Selvarani and Mr.R. Neelakanda Pillai have filed W.P.Nos.9224 and 9225 of 2008 against the very same reversion order.