IMPORTANT POINT
Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, in normal circumstances, a list of approved candidates for appointment shall be annually prepared but the Government is not denuded of its power to make the list when new situation had arisen.

ORDER

CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 18886-87/91 & 9056-57/92

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras by purported judgment and order, made on June 11, 1991 in T.A. Nos. 123 and 127 of 1989, has held that under Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules on preparation of the panel either with the names or nil annual list, the Government exhausted their power to make another list in the same year for promotion of the subordinate officers to the higher post in the State or Subordinate service. The said view is in question in these appeals.

3. The admitted position is that due to bifurcation of new firkas and upgradation of Sub-Taluks into Taluks 23 vacancies of Assistants had arisen in Pudukottai District. The crucial date for preparation of the panel is as prescribed by the appropriate rules. It is not in dispute in these cases that the crucial date is March 15, 1979. As on the date, there were no vacancies existing or anticipated in the said District. But due to bifurcation of the firkas and upgradation of the sub-Taluks into Taluks, as stated earlier, 23 new posts were created by the Government for filling up the same. List had been drawn and appointments to the said posts of Assistants came to be made. The respondents filed the OAs in the Tribunal challenging the power to prepare the list. The Tribunal had held that in the light of Rule 4(a) of the Rules, the Government is devoid of power to make any supplementary list. The list once made, is construed to be an annual list and by operation of provisions thereof, the Government is left with no power to make any supplementary list in that behalf. The Tribunal has also relied upon the instructions issued by the Government in their G.O.Ms. No. 1227 dated December 10, 1981.

4. Shri T. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that Rule 4(1) would apply in the case where normal exigencies of service would operate in which event the Government or the competent officer would be in a position to assess the existing vacancies or the vacancies likely to arise or temporary vacancies likely to arise but in view of the creation of the new posts in the year due to bifurcation of the firkas and upgradation of the sub-taluks into taluks the said Rule cannot be strictly interpreted denuding the Government of the power to make appointment by promotion. The view taken by the Tribunal is not correct in law. Shri K. Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the Rule is operative whether for the existing vacancies or for the anticipated vacancies including the new vacancies likely to arise. Rule 39 of the Rules gives power to make temporary appointments and in ensuing year they can be promoted on regular basis. The Government having issued the instructions in G.O.Ms. No. 1227/81 cannot make any appointment by preparing a supplementary list which is not warranted or contemplated under Rule 4(a) of the Rules.

5. In view of the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is : whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law ? We have come across number of judgments of various Administrative Tribunals in the country treating their orders to be "a judgment and order" obviously under Section 2(9), CPC. The view seems to be not correct in law. A judgment means a statement given by a Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. Section 2(8) defines "Judge" to mean the presiding officer of a civil court. An officer, therefore, is appointed to preside and to administer the law in a court of justice and clothed with judicial authority. Judgment is the decision of a court of justice upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action in a suit submitted to it for determination. The word "judgment" denotes the reasons which the court gives for its decision. The members of the Tribunal cannot be considered to be Judges and their statement