(1.) THE 24 petitioners who were working as Sub-Registrars in various register offices in the State of Tamilnadu filed O.A.No,2981 of 1998 before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to revise and publish a final seniority list of Sub-Registrar, Grade -II by duly applying the quota rota system in terms of Rule (6)(a) of the General Rules and Rule 2(c) of the Special Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Services and fix the seniority of the petitioners.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the existing seniority list containing 289 promotee Sub-Registrars were placed above the names of the petitioners and such an action was illegal. However, the petitioners impleaded one P. Anbazhagan as the fourth respondent to the Original Application. They also filed M.A.No,2804 of 1998 before the Tribunal to implead the fourth respondent in representative capacity representing the interest of all the similarly placed persons whose names are in the seniority list dated 28.06.1997. In the application, the provision of law under which the said application was filed before the Tribunal was not indicated. However, the Tribunal merely recorded that the petitioners will make a paper publication and file the proof of the same. ACCORDINGly, paper publication was effected and on filing the said paper publication, the miscellaneous application was allowed. During the pendency of the Original Application, the petitioners did not have the benefit of any interim order.
(3.) HOWEVER, Mr. K. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners are squarely covered by a Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Malalaimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2006) 3 M.L.J. 161(S.C.). Before going into the merits of the dispute, unless the affected parties are served in the manner known to law, this Court is not inclined to hear the writ petition.