IMPORTANT POINT
Initial appointment to a post without recourse to the rules of recruitment is not an appointment to a service as contemplated under Rule 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, notwithstanding the fact that such appointee is called upon to perform duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 — Rules 10(a)(i)(1), 23(a), 39(a) — Tamil Nadu Registration Services Rules — Rule 25 — Method of recruitment of District Registrars by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer — Determination of inter-se seniority — Appellants belonging to the Tamil Nadu Registration Services, working as Assistant Inspector Generals of Registration — Appellants were directly recruited as District Registrars by G.O. dated 24.10.1989 — Claim made that their seniority should be counted from the year 1986 when the first set of transferee officers were sought to be regularized — Appellants claim was rejected as they had not entered service at that point of time — Names of appellants were included in the seniority list but placed below the persons who were promotee District Registrars — Tribunal dismissed applications filed by appellants holding that if their claim was to be accepted, their seniority will have to date back to a period when they had not even commenced discharging their duties of District Registrars — High Court held that the period during which the promotees had initially discharged duties of District Registrars, though appointed temporarily was to be counted for determining their seniority — Whether judgment of the High Court is sustainable — (No) — Respondents authorities directed to re-determine seniority of appellants in relation to the promotees after reckoning the starting point of seniority of such promotees from the date on which their services were regularized and not from the date of their initial appointment.
Held : In the instant case, the authorities, on the strength of the several Government Orders giving retrospective effect to the regularization of the promotees, have taken the date of initial appointment of such promotees as the starting point of their seniority. In our view, such a course of action was erroneous and contrary to the well established principles relating to determination of seniority. In our view, the High Court took an erroneous view in the matter in applying Rule 4 of the General Rules and holding that the period during which the promotees had initially discharged the duties of District Registrars, though appointed temporary under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1), was to be counted for determining their seniority. The decision of this Court in the case of L. Chandakishore Singh (supra) relied on by Shri Venkataramani, did not involve the question of persons appointed outside the service as a stop-gap arrangement. The fact situation of the said decision is different from the fact situation of the instant case which finds support from the decisions cited by Mr. Rao. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the concerned respondents to re-determine seniority of the appellants in relation to the promotees after reckoning the starting point of seniority of such promotees from the date on which of theirservices were regularized and not from the date of their initial appointment under Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) of the General Rules. (Paras 25 and 26)

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. — These three appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 24th December, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 16806/98, 1548/99 and 1549/99. One K. Madalaimuthu was the petitioner in the first two writ petitions, while one A. Arumuga Nainar was the petitioner in the third writ petition. Both of them had similar interests and the reliefs prayed for were also similar and were thus disposed of by the common judgment referred to above. Since these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants belong to the Tamil Nadu Registration Services and are said to be working as Assistant Inspector General of Registration. Their services are governed by the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the General Rules") and by the Tamil Nadu Registration Services Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the Special Rules"). In 1969, the Special Rules provided for two classes of officers. Class I comprised the Inspector General (Registration). Class II provided for two categories, namely, Inspector of Registration Officers, and District Registrars. Subsequently, the categorization was modified and the District Registrars were placed in the third category. The method of recruitment of District Registrars is either by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service. According to the appellants, the recruitment for the post of District Registrar comes under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the Special Rules had originally provided that substantive vacancies of District Registrars were to be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and by recruitment by transfer from the Madras Registration Subordinate Service in the proportion of 1:5, provided that the number of substantive vacancies filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment was not to exceed three at a given time. It is the further case of the appellants that the Special Rules were amended on 26th April, 1972, whereby the proportion of 1:5 was omitted and it was substituted by the condition that substantive vacancies of District Registrars were to be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and by recruitment by transfer from the Tamil Nadu Registration Subordinate Service in such manner that there would be at least three directly recruited District Registrars in position at any given time and this would be exclusive of directly recruited District Registrars occupying higher posts in the department or outside. It was also stipulated that if in any particular year, a direct recruit was to be appointed, he was to be given the first vacancy.

3. In 1981, 1982 and 1984, the Government prepared a temporary list of officers who were fit for appointment by transfer to the post of District Registrar, pending finalization of the regular list in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is the case of the appellants that the said temporary list for the year 1981 consisted of 34 Sub-Registrars and the lists for the years 1982 and 1983 consisted of 36 and 25 Sub-Registrars, respectively. Subsequently, temporary appointments were made under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the General Rules which reads as follows:-

"10(a)(i)(1) : Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with these rules and the Special Rules, the appointing authority may temporarily appoint a person, who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post otherwise than in accordance with the said rules.

Provided that no appointment by direct recruitment under t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 568

Cases Referred (4)