K. CHIDAMBARAM AND ANR. Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J., in Writ Petition No. 665 of 1976 dismissing the said writ petition. The appellants were temporarily promoted along with 13 others as Executive Officer, Grade I from the post of Executive Officer, Grade II on various dates in 1964 and they were later regularised with effect from 1st April, 1965. On 22nd May, 1965, there was a selection of direct recruits to the post of Executive Officer, Grade I and those direct recruits were posted as Executive Officers, Grade I, on various dates in 1965. Subsequently there was fixation of inter se seniority of persons as between the appellants Who were promoted from Grade II and those Who were recruited directly as Executive Officer, Grade I, in G. O.Ms. No. 57, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 20th January, 1976. In the said combined seniority list, the first appellant has been given 15th rank and the second appellant 19th rank. The appellants had filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the said G. O. on the ground that the inter se seniority has been fixed in contravention of Rule 35 (a) of the State Subordinate Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the General Rules. Apart from the appellants there were three other promotees who also filed writ petitions challenging the same G.O.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions were resisted by the first and second respondents and the direct recruits who are respondents 3 to 8 herein. Their case was that the inter se seniority has been fixed as against those regularly appointed as Executive Officer in Grade I in the year 1965 by applying Rule 2(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Subordinate Service Rules, hereinafter called the Special Rules, by taking two direct recruits and three promotees for every set of five persons and that such inter se fixation of seniority is strictly in accordance with the said Rules.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has urged three contentions. (1) that the inter se seniority fixed under the impugned G. O. as between direct recruits and the promotees is not only quite arbitrary but also contravenes Rule 35(a) end that it is also violative of Article 16; (2), that Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules does not permit the fixation of such a seniority ignoring general Rule 35 (a); (3) that the inter se seniority list has never been fixed so far with reference to Special Rule 2(b) and that the new departure made in enforcing the special rule for the first time, has prejudiced persons like the appellants who are promotees.