Appointing authority competent to prepare seniority list.

Sathiadev, J.

1. (WA. No. 144 of 1987)-Fourth respondent in W.P. No. 1763 of 1980 is the appellant. The writ petitioner and the three other respondents therein, are the respondents herein. (Ranking of parties as in writ petition).

2. Petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the order of third respondent dated 8.8.1979 in and by which the seniority of the fourth respondent was revised in the comprehensive seniority list of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-I. The impugned order was issued based on the order of Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1890, Home (Transport II) dated 27.7.1979. In the 1972 List, petitioner was ranked as No. 39, and fourth respondent as No. 51. By virtue of the impugned order, he became senior to petitioner by 12 places. Hence, when he filed the writ petition, the learned Judge allowed it on two grounds viz., (1) the seniority assigned by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the lower category will not be relevant for the next higher category, and (2) the revision of seniority done without opportunity to the affected persons offends principles of natural justice. Aggrieved against this decision, this appeal is preferred by fourth respondent.

3. Along with this writ appeal, WA. No. 2322 of 1987 had also been heard, and it would be dealt with later on. Extensive submissions have been made by respective counsel, and the points taken are dealt with in seriatim.

4. The first point taken is that, the seniority list prepared by Secretary to Transport Commissioner & Ex-officio Joint Transport Commissioner in R. No. C2/63527/65, dated 21.6.1966 is binding upon respondents, and the seniority assigned to petitioner cannot be altered without giving an opportunity to him. The posts of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors and Motor Vehicles Inspectors have been created under Class V of Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service. The nomenclatures of these two posts were changed as Motor Vehicles Inspectors Grade I and Motor Vehicles Inspectors Grade II. Under Rule 2(a), for the category of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I, the appointment is made by promotion from Motor Vehicles Inspectors Grade II, or for special reasons, recruitment by transfer from any other class or service. For the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II, the appointment is by direct recruitment, or for special reasons, recruitment I by transfer from any other class or service. Rule 2(b) 1 states that promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. Under Rule 3, the appointing authority shall be the Deputy Transport Commissioner provided that in the City of Madras no person shall be appointed by direct recruitment or transferred from the muffasal without the prior concurrence of the Commissioner of Police.

5. The respective service particulars of petitioner and fourth respondent are as follows:

Petitioner 4th Respondent

C.O.ARU-MUGAM G.P. PURUSHO-THAMAN

"Appointed temporarily as M.V.I. Gr II 15.1.1963 14.11.1962

Appointed through T.N.P.S.C. as MVI Gr.II 7.3.1963 7.3.1963

Probation completed 16.5.1965 1968

Promoted to the next post, MVI Gr.I 14.7.1965 17.2.1966 (but reverted to MVI Gr. II for not passing the Dept. test on 27.10.67 Again promoted on 26.6.69 after passing Dept. test.

Regularised as MVI Gr.I 30.7.1965 9.7.1969"

Fourth respondent claims that he was ranked No. 6 by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on being selected for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, which is now re-designated as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II. Service Commission published a list of candidates on 17.4.1974 for 1963 batch. This list is not placed before Court, by respondents 1 to 3. Petitioner is also one of the Motor Vehicles Inspectors Grade II selected in 1963. There is an indication as to what was the inter se seniority fixed by the Service Commission for 9 candidates, in the communication dated 1-10-1963 of the Depu