Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1369
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
P. Kadhirvel
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government & Others
W.A.Nos.162 and 163 of 2007
Decided on: 23-04-2009
For the Appellant:C. Selvaraj, Sr. Counsel, S. Mani, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R2, S. Rajasekar, AGP [Edu], C. Chinnasamy, Sr. Counsel, R4, Haja Mohideen, Ezhilarasi, for TNPSC, R3, S.A. Hafiz, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of a person in a service, class, category, or grade shall be determined with reference to the date on which he is appointed to the services, class, category, or grade, as per Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules.
Headnote:
Seniority - Educational Services - Rule 35(aa) of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules - The court discussed the regularity of the appellant's appointment, his seniority over directly recruited candidates, and the applicability of Rule 35(aa) in determining seniority.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought to quash orders rejecting his plea to restore seniority and promote him as Principal with retrospective effect. The court analyzed the regularity of the appellant's appointment, his seniority, and the applicability of Rule 35(aa) in determining seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's services were regularized in the educational service, and his seniority should be determined with reference to the date on which his services were regularized.
Issues: The issues revolved around the regularity of the appellant's appointment, his seniority over directly recruited candidates, and the applicability of Rule 35(aa) in determining seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's seniority should be determined with reference to the date on which his services were regularized, and Rule 35(aa) is applicable in determining his seniority.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to determine the appellant's seniority in relation to the directly recruited officers after reckoning the date on which their services were regularized. The court allowed the writ appeals accordingly.
Common Judgment: Aruna Jagadeesan, J.
1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, by which the appellant sought to quash the orders passed by the third respondent in Pro.Na.Ka.No.0513/B/2002 dated 01.07.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.65 Higher Education (F1) Department, dated 04.03.2005 passed by the first respondent, rejecting his plea to restore his seniority.
2. The facts identical in both the appeals are briefly stated as below :-
The appellant was appointed as Junior Assistant on 14.06.1972 in Secretariat Service selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He was promoted as Assistant in January 1973 and he satisfactorily completed his probation in the said post on 13.06.1974. As he possessed higher Educational qualification, he applied for appointment to the educational service and was appointed as Assistant Professor of Economics in Government Arts College by way of transfer from Secretariat service on 16.08.1974 and joined duty on 21.08.1974. His services were regularized on 23.08.1976 as Assistant Professor with effect from 21.08.1974 and his probation was also declared in the cadre of Assistant Professor on 20.08.1976. As the Government upgraded the post of Assistant Professor of Economics as Professor of Economics on completion of ten years of regular service as Assistant Professor, he was promoted as Professor w.e.f. 25.08.1984 on such up-gradation. Subsequently on the basis of G.O.1785 and 1786 Education (H3) Department dated 012. 1988, re-designating the nomenclature of teaching posts in Government Colleges and aided colleges, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai in and by his proceedings in Roc.No.76631/D4/91 dated 111. 1992 issued orders whereby, the appellant was placed as Lecturer (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 25.08.1989.
3. The Fourth respondent in W.A.No.162/2007, Dr. Venkatasami, was selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as assistant professor of Economics and he joined duty on 30.06.1975 F.N. His services as such were regularized on 08.06.1976 with effect from 30.06.1975 F.N. So, according to the appellant, the fourth Respondent is junior to him as his services were regularized only from 30.06.1975 whereas services of the appellant were regularized in the said post w.e.f. the earlier date i.e. 21.08.1974. As per the order issued by the second respondent, re-designating the posts of Professors as Lecturer (Selection Grade), Dr. L. Venkatasamy was awarded Selection Grade only from 01.09.1990 as against the award of selection grade to the appellant on 25.08.1989 itself. The appellant continued to be senior to Dr. L. Venkatasamy till 30.06.2002 without any dispute whatsoever.
4. During the year 2002, there were four Lecturers [Selection Grade] in Economics Department in Presidency College, Chennai, including Dr. L. Venkatasamy. As the appellant was not placed as Head of Department [in-charge] during the leave vacancy, he made a representation to the third respondent, Principal on 21.06.2002 to which the third respondent for the first time informed the appellant that Dr. L. Venkatasamy was placed as Head of Department [in-charge] as he is senior to the appellant. Despite appeal preferred on 24.07.2002 and 112. 2002 to the second respondent, his grievance to restore his seniority was not redressed. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.1122/2004 on the file of the State Administrative Tribunal and as there was no Presiding Officer from 03.06.2004, he preferred W.P.No.22952/2004 for issuance of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and to quash the order of the third respondent and to restore his seniority. This court by order dated 03.01.2005 issued direction to the first respondent to consider the case and pass orders on merits within a period of two months. Accordingly, the first respondent after consulting the fifth respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, declared that Dr.
