Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 279

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT & ORS. & ETC. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 251-256 of 2015 with Civil Appeal Nos. 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262 of 2015; Civil Appeal Nos. 1624-1625 of 2015; Contempt Petition (C) No. 51 of 2013 in C.A. No. 2252 of 2009; Contempt Petition (C) No. 173 of 2013 in C.A. No. 2252 of 2009; Contempt Petition No. 750 of 2017 in C.A. No. 2251 of 2009
Decided on : 12-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. R. Viduthalai,Sr.Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran,Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Ashwini Kumar,Adv. Ms. Rangoli Seth,Adv Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan,Adv. Ms. Vandana,Adv. Mr. Vivek Bharathi,Adv. Mr. L. K. Pandey, AOR Mr. R. Viduthalai,Sr.Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran,Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Ashwini Kumar,Adv. Ms. Rangoli Seth,Adv., Mr. Nishant,Adv. Mr. G. Umapathy,Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. V. Balachandran, AOR Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Balaji,Adv. Mr. MSM Asaithambi,Adv. Mr. Rohit Minocha,Adv. Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan,AOR Ms. Vandana,Adv. Mr. Vivek Bharathi,Adv. Ms. Anushree Menon,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Ms. Purbitaa Mitra,Adv. Mr. A. Leo George Rozario,Adv. Mr. S. Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Rohit K.Singhy,Adv. Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, AOR.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(a) Promotion – Direction to draw seniority list taking Direct recruit Assistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Promotee non-graduate Assistants as one group, is misconceived.
(b) Benefit extended to graduate Promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants is to be given effect to prospectively.

Headnote:(A) Service Law – Promotion as Deputy Tahsildar – Direction to draw seniority list taking Direct recruit Assistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Promotee non-graduate Assistants as one group – Appointment to post of Deputy Tahsildar is governed by rules framed under proviso to Article 309 – Division Bench failed to notice that amendment to Rule 5(g) of TNRSS Rules by G.O. No.133 dated 07.02.1995 has been upheld by Supreme Court and has attained finality – Direction of Division Bench to treat all three categories viz. Promotee non-graduate Assistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Direct Recruit Assistants as one group for promotion to post of Deputy Tahsildar virtually amounts to reversing judgment of Supreme Court – Direction of Division Bench in impugned judgment is wholly misconceived – Impugned judgment of High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. (Paras 14, 15 and 18)
       (B) Service Law – Promotion as Deputy Tahsildar – Promotions of Direct recruit Assistants effected between 07.02.1995 and 08.04.2009 and their seniority in their respective positions as on date, shall not be disturbed – Benefit extended to graduate Promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants is to be given effect to prospectively from date of judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in case of M. Rathinaswami v. State of T.N., (2009) 5 SCC 625 – After 08.04.2009, promotion to post of Deputy Tahsildar from its feeder category, i.e., Direct recruit Assistants and Promotee graduate Assistants shall be treating Promotee graduate Assistants on par with Direct Recruit Assistants – Such promotion shall be given effect to, without reference to any interim order(s) passed by High Court – So far as Promotee non-graduate Assistants are concerned, amended Rule 5(g) of TNRSS Rules holds field which gives preferential treatment to Direct recruit Assistants, over Promotee non-graduate Assistants – Promotee non-graduate Assistants, who are impleaded as party respondents in these appeals, are not entitled to any directions in their favour, as much as, all these appeals are preferred by Direct recruit Assistants – So far as Promotee non-graduate Assistants are concerned, it is open for them to pursue with Government for appropriate amendment to Rules. (Para 19)
       Facts of Case:
       Issue involved in these appeals is implementation of amended Rule 5(g) in Annexure-III, item No. (ii) of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS Rules) coupled with judgment of Supreme Court in M. Rathinaswami and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009) 5 SCC 625 by which Supreme Court read down Rule insofar as Promotee graduate Assistants and upheld validity of Rule to the extent it gives preference to Direct recruit Assistants over Promotee non-graduate Assistants. By impugned order High Court has set aside order of Single Judge and directed respondents to draw seniority list taking Direct recruit Assistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Promotee non-graduate Assistants as one group for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar. Order of dismissal of review petitions by High Court is also impugned in these appeals.
       Findings of Court:
       By wrongly relying on letter dated 30.12.2011 of Government, in impugned judgment, High Court has held that graduate and non-graduate Promotee Assistants would be considered as one single category along with Assistants and the impugned judgment of High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
       Result : Appeals allowed with observations and directions.

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi, J.

These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 09.03.2012 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in WA (MD) Nos.1285-1290 of 2011 in and by which the High Court has set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the respondentsto draw the seniority list taking Direct recruit Assistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Promotee non-graduate Assistants as one group for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar. The order of dismissal of the review petitions by the High Court is also impugned in these appeals.

2. The issue involved in these appeals is the implementation of the amended Rule 5(g) in Annexure-III, item No. (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS Rules) coupled with the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Rathinaswami and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009) 5 SCC 625 by which the Supreme Court read down the Rule insofar as the Promotee graduate Assistants and upheld the validity of the Rule to the extent it gives preference to the Direct recruit Assistants over the Promotee non-graduate Assistants. The post of Assistant in Revenue Department is filled up by two sources; one is by direct recruitment through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and other is by promotion from the category of Junior Assistants with the minimum qualification of SSLC. The post of Assistant in Revenue Department in the State of Tamil Nadu is governed by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. The said Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per the original TNRSS Rules, the inter-se seniority of the Direct recruit Assistants in the Districts shall be fixed in the following cyclical order irrespective of the date of their joining of the duty:-

Annexure IX

(Referred to in Rule 3g(b)(ii)

First two vacancies

Persons appointed by promotion

Third vacancy

Persons appointed by direct recruitment

Fourth and fifth

Persons appointed vacancies by promotion

Sixth vacancy

Persons appointed by direct recruitment

3. The Direct recruit Assistants in Revenue Department submitted representation that they be given preferential treatment in the matter of promotion to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar without basing their seniority in the Assistant list. In G.O. No. 884 dated 12.08.1992, Revenue Department directed the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration to send necessary draft amendment to the Special Rules to the TNRSS Rules so as to consider the cases of Direct recruit Assistants in the District Revenue Administration on completion of five years training for inclusion in the Deputy Tahsildar list. Accordingly, the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration had sent proposals for amendment to Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III to Special Rules for the TNRSS. The State Government approved the draft amendment to Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III Item (ii) to the Special Rules for the TNRSS Rules in G.O. No. 133 dated 07.02.1995. The said amendment reads as under:-

"NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Section 28 in Volume III of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual, 1970.
2. The amendments hereby made shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th December, 1978.

AMENDMENTS

......................
2. In Annexure III, in item (ii), for the last proviso, the following provision(s) shall be substituted namely:-
"provided also that an Assistant appointed by direct recruitment in the office of the erstwhile Board of Revenue, who has completed a total service of five years, passed all the tests prescribed and undergone training as Firka Revenue Inspector for a period of two years

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Annexure IX (Referred to in Rule 3g(b)(ii)
First two vacancies	Persons appointed by promotion
Third vacancy	Persons appointed by direct recruitment
Fourth and fifth	Persons appointed vacancies by promotion
Sixth vacancy	Persons appointed by direct recruitment

2019 Supreme(SC) 279

Cases Referred (2)