Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 548
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
N. Subramanian & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes/Religious Endowments Department & Others
W.P.Nos.36522, 1941, 2717 and 36794 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.987 of 2007 and 39404 of 2005
Decided on: 13-02-2009
For the Petitioners:Karthik Rajan, R. Thiagarajan, SC, K. Sanjay, T.S. Sivagnanam, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, M. Dhandapani, Spl.GP, R2, Ms. C.N.G. Ezhilarasi, R4, R. Thiagarajan, SC for K. Sanjay, R1 & R2, T. Chandrasekaran, Spl.GP, R1, M.M. Sundresh, R3 to 13, Muthukumaraswamy, SC for B. Ravi Advocate.
The power of the Government to make amendments to statutory rules under Article 309 and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
Headnote:
Amendment - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Service - G.O.Ms.No.61, CT & RE Department, dated 03. 1994 - The court discussed the amendment to the special rules for the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Service, which reduced the direct recruitment quota to 20% and included a 20% quota for law graduates with 15 years of service. The court highlighted the arguments made before the Tribunal and the subsequent amendment made by the State Government, emphasizing the power of the Government to make amendments and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the subsequent amendment to the special rules for the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Service, which reduced the direct recruitment quota to 20% and included a 20% quota for law graduates with 15 years of service. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's direction to make a positive amendment was not binding on the Government, and the amendment to the rules was made pursuant to the Tribunal's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the power of the Government to make amendments and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The court held that unless the rule offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it cannot be impugned in a writ petition under Article 226.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Tribunal's direction to make a positive amendment, the Government's obligation to follow such a direction, and the validity of the subsequent amendment to the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in matters of amendment to statutory rules under Article 309, highlighting the power of the Government to make amendments and the need for the rule to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to be challenged.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
K. Chandru, J.
W.P.No.36522 of 2005 is filed by one Subramanian and 14 others against the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.3078 of 1994 dated 20.11.2003.
2. The very same petitioners have also filed W.P.No.36794 of 2005 challenging the order of the State Government made in G.O.Ms.No.341, Tamil Development, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 11. 2004 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner with retrospective effect from the date when they complete 15 years of service in the feeder category department and to appoint them under 20% quota as was ordered in G.O.Ms.No.61, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 03. 1994.
.3. W.P.No.1941 of 2005 was filed by one Vijayan challenging the very same order of the Government dated 11. 2004 and for a consequential restoration of the G.O. dated 03. 1994. W.P.No.2717 of 2005 was also for a similar relief. In view of the interconnectivity of all the four writ petitions, they were heard together and a common order is being passed.
4. The State Government by G.O.Ms.No.61, CT & RE Department, dated 03. 1994 directed amendments to the special rules for the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Service (for short HR & CE service). These amendments were issued pursuant to the representation received by the Government. Originally, the HR & CE service rules provided for 40% of the post of Assistant Commissioner to be filled up by direct recruitment and 60% to be recruited from among the service candidates. By G.O.No.61, the direct recruitment quota was reduced to 20% and the balance 20% of the post of Assistant Commissioner to be filled up among the law graduates of ministerial service and subordinate service of the HR & CE department with 15 years of regular service and apart from graduation, they must also possess a degree in law as an essential qualification.
5. This amendment came to be challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by one M.Vijayan (petitioner in W.P.No.1941/ 2005) being O.A.No.3078 of 1994. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that 20% reserved for persons with law degree and 15 years service was insisted upon. In case of other categories like Executive Officer Grade I, Superintendent, Manager, Head Clerk, Inspector who are having law degrees, they will also come under the very same category of 20%. Therefore, when 20% was specially reserved for service candidates with law degree, it must be given to all the employees irrespective of the categories to which they belong to, of course excluding the OAs and basic servants.
6. The Tribunal carried away by this argument set aside the amendment and held that it was open to the Government to issue an amendment by including the categories of Assistants, Junior Assistants and make them eligible for appointment by transfer of service to the post of Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal also stated that if the Government for any reason considers that it was not possible to extend the quota to those categories then they may restore the original 40% quota for the direct recruitment as was done all these years so that the Assistants and Junior Assistants will not be appointed by transfer from other service.
.7. Consequent upon the directions issued by the Tribunal, the Commissioner for HR & CE Department made a recommendation dated 01. 2004 as follows:-
.The order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has been perused. If amendment as suggested by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is made, Grade IV Executive Officers will also press for inclusion of their category. In the fresh Amendment. This will lead to unhealthy competition for the post of Assistant Commissioner among various categories of subordinate staff. Even law graduates are recruited to Grade IV categories of Executive Officers. In the absence
