Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
Parties :
K. Kannayiram & Another
Versus
The Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement & Others
Writ Petition Nos.28298 and 28299 of 2006, O.A.No.3337of 1996
Decided on : 18-07-2008
Seniority - Promotion - Firka Surveyor - Special Rules for Tamilnadu survey and Land Records Subordinate Services - Rule 3(a), Rule 5(a) - Reversion without sufficient notice - Regular promotions - Fixation of seniority - Revision of seniority - Impugned order set aside
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Consolidated Surveyors and later promoted as Firka Surveyors. They were reverted from the post of Firka Surveyor without sufficient notice, based on a revised seniority list issued by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the promotions of the petitioners were regular and in conformity with the Special Rules for Tamilnadu survey and Land Records Subordinate Services. The reversion order passed against the petitioners was not a necessary corollary to the revision of seniority and was set aside.
Issues: The issues involved the reversion of the petitioners from the post of Firka Surveyors without sufficient notice and the validity of the revised seniority list.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reversion of the petitioners was not justified as their promotions were regular and the revision of seniority did not necessitate their reversion.
Final Decision: The impugned order of reversion was set aside and the writ petitions were allowed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents.
W.P.No.28298 of 2006:
2. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Consolidated Surveyor on
183. He was appointed as a Field Surveyor in the month of November, 1984. The next avenue of promotion is `Firka Surveyor. Before the promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor, one has to pass the field Surveyor test, which the petitioner had passed in the month of November, 1984. Since the petitioner had passed the field surveyor test, he was promoted as a Firka Surveyor, with effect from 292. However, by an order of the first respondent, dated 6. 96, the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of Firka Surveyor, retaining those who had passed the field surveyor test subsequent to the petitioner and those who were promoted as Firka Surveyor after the promotion had been granted to the petitioner. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of reversion was passed by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3337 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.28298 of 2006.
W.P.No.28299 of 2006:
3. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Consolidated Surveyor in the year 1983. He was appointed as a Field Surveyor in the year 1987. The next avenue of promotion is `Firka Surveyor. Before the promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor, one has to pass the field Surveyor test, which the petitioner had passed in the year 1989. Since the petitioner had passed the field surveyor test, he was promoted as a Firka Surveyor, with effect from 92. However, by an order of the first respondent, dated 6. 96, the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of Firka Surveyor, retaining those who had passed the field surveyor test subsequent to the petitioner and those who were promoted as Firka Surveyor after the promotion had been granted to the petitioner. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of reversion was passed by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3338 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28299 of 2006.
4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the first and second respondents, it has been stated that the revision of seniority had been done only based on the order passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.199 of 1990. In the original application filed before the Tribunal questioning the procedure of following the rule of reservation in making the appointments to the time scale of pay in the posts of Surveyor and Draftsman, the Tribunal by its order, dated 9. 91, had issued directions for payment of consolidated pay to Surveyor–Draftsman in the time scale of pay posts, strictly by following seniority alone. As the review application, filed for the reconsideration of the said order, had been dismissed, a special leave petition had been filed before the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition No.CC 25347/94. The Special Leave Petition had also been dismissed. Therefore, instructions had been issued to all the Assistant Directors of Survey and Land Records, by the second respondent, in Na.Ka.Na2/45858/95, dated 29. 95, for revising and regulating all the temporary appointments made to the time scale of pay posts from consolidated pay employees by strictly following seniority alone. Accordingly, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land records, Madurai, had issued a revised seniority list in his Rc.S8/14699/95, dated 13. 96, giving 15 days time for receiving representations and thereafter, had issued the final seniority list in Rc.S8/14699/95, dated 296. Based on the revised seni
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
