GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. J GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present review petitions have been filed by the respondents in the writ petition against the order passed by this Court directing the petitioners herein to revise the seniority of the respondents/writ petitioners by duly applying the Quota/Rota system as per the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service Special Rules, applicable to the category of Assistant Sec. Officers and fix their seniority at the appropriate place and grant consequential attendant benefits.

(2.) Mr. Arvind Pandiah, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the review petitioners submitted that the administration is facing certain difficulties in implementing the orders, since the Quota/Rota rule, as provided under the Special Rules, has broken down over the years. Learned Addl. Advocate General further submitted that the Quota/Rota system is to be followed in respect of the following seven category posts :-

(3.) Learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the Quota/Rota system could not be operated partly in respect of the 2nd category, i.e., recruitment by transfer. Since the administration has not appointed any person by way of 'Recruitment by Transfer', the Quota/Rota rule could not be followed strictly and in which event the Quota/Rota Rule is deemed to have broken down. Therefore, learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that in terms of the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the order has to be clarified that the seniority to be revised in terms of the new Rules, i.e, Rule 42 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016, which replaced the old Rule 35 (aa). Learned Addl. Advocate General, particularly emphasised the fact that in terms of the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers- Association - Vs - State of Maharashtra, 1990 2 SCC 715, where on the Quota rule promotion is done and the appointments are made from one source, in excess of the quota, but are made after following the procedure prescribed for appointment, the appointee should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other sources inducted into service at a later date. Learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the petitioner should be permitted to take such course while revising the seniority of the writ petitioners. According to him, if such course is adopted, it will be equitable and reasonable to all stakeholders concerned.