M SABIT BANU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts are similar and the relief sought for in both the petitions is also similar and therefore these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) WE need only narrate the facts in W.P.1634 of 1995. Petitioner therein was appointed as steno-typist temporarily and he was subsequently regularised. According to him. District Judge, Ramanathapuram prepared a seniority list consisting of persons working as Steno-typist and Junior Assistants and petitioner name finds a place as 19 and 23 respectively. First petitioner therein was promoted as Assistant and he joined duty on 27.8.1992 in the District Court, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur. Thereafter, he was transferred to Sub Court, Srivilliputhur where he was working as Assistant with effect from 31.12.1993. Second petitioner was promoted as Assistant in 1992 and she joined duty in Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Srivilliputhur.

(3.) IN that counter-affidavit it is said that Government of Tamil Nadu bifurcated Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-Typists and treated them as separate categories. Steno-Typists have been categorised as Grade I, Grade II and Grade III and their scale of pay was also revised. Pay scale of Steno-typists Grade III is equal to that of Assistant and their promotional chances are from Grade III to Grade II and from Grade II to Grade I. It is said that the bifurcation was ordered only at the request of petitioners? association. Government also decided that Junior Assistants and Typists form a separate category and they alone are to be considered for promotion as Assistants and Superintendents whereas Steno-typists who are entitled to better scale of pay were considered for other promotions. It is from 1.8.1992 the rules were amended and Various Government Orders were issued. With effect from that date, no Steno-typists of Grade III are eligible to be appointed as Assistant though they are included in the panel. Only members who have already joined as Assistants and working as such as on 1.8.1992 were given protection. Since petitioners? reversion is consequent to the policy decision of Government and based on Government Orders, there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. Merely because petitioners were included in the panel to be considered for promotion, they are not getting any vested right to get them promoted. IN fact, after 1.8.1992, there is no scope for promotion from Steno-typist Grade III to that of Assistant since the scale of pay of both the categories are one and the same. It prayed for dismissal of writ petition.