Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
N. Bharathi - Appellant
Versus
The Additional Director General of Prison, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 11486 of 2014 & M.P. No. 2 of 2014
Decided On : 30-06-2022
Seniority - Appointment - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1988 - General Rule 35(a) - Rule 4(C) - Verification of character and antecedents - Court's analysis of the legal provisions and their interpretation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order fixing his seniority from the date of appointment, contending that his delay in joining duty was due to continuous litigation. The respondents argued that the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case led to the delay in appointment and that his seniority was fixed in accordance with the rules in force.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delay in joining duty was due to his involvement in a criminal case, and his seniority was rightly fixed from the date of his appointment as per the applicable rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim for seniority from the date of selection, the delay in joining duty, and the application of the relevant rules for fixing seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the verification of character and antecedents is crucial in prison services, and the petitioner's delay in joining duty was a result of his own involvement in a criminal case. The court also emphasized the importance of following the rules in force for fixing seniority.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the order of the second respondent made in No.17217/ EW.1/ 2012 dated 16.04.2013 and the enclosure of the 4th respondent in Government Letter No.57856/Pri.II/2012-4 dated 19.12.2012 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to rectify the seniority of the petitioner on par with his batch mates and to extend benefits of pension scheme, GPF contribution and other service benefits arising thereto forthwith.)
1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.12.2012, fixing the seniority of the writ petitioner from the date of appointment / commencement of probation which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Grade-II Warder in the year 1997. He was provisionally selected and during the verification of antecedents, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, submitted an adverse report on 27.11.1997. The report states that a criminal case in Crime No.188 of 1997 was registered against the writ petitioner and the petitioner was facing trial in C.C.No.177 of 1997, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. Based on the report, the selection of the writ petitioner was not considered further for issuance of appointment.
3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the criminal complaint registered against the writ petitioner was withdrawn subsequently and therefore, he filed O.A.No.7562 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for issuing posting orders. The Administrative Tribunal passed an order dated 20.12.2001, directing the Inspector General of Prison to issue posting order within a specified period. The department preferred a writ petition against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 05.04.2007 and thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed on 09.07.2008, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, posting order was issued and the writ petitioner reported for duty on 23.12.2009.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the posting order was issued and the petitioner joined duty on 23.12.2009, his selection was of the year 1997 and therefore, seniority must be fixed along with his batch mates. The delay occurred on account of continuous litigation before the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and such a delay by the respondents would not be a ground to deny seniority of the writ petitioner along with his batch mates from the year 1997. The writ petitioner submitted a representation in this regard on 22.05.2012 and the said representation was rejected on 19.12.2012 and thereafter, on 16.04.2013. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal issued an order of direction, directing the Authorities Competent to issue posting orders. Thereafter, the Department filed writ petition and SLP, which took time, for which the petitioner cannot be penalised. Thus, petitioner is entitled to claim seniority along with his batch mates from the year 1997 onwards.
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment during the relevant point of time, on account of the adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, wherein, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a Criminal Case in Kalakkadu Police Station in Crime No.188 of 1997, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 506 (ii) read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.14 out of 25 and he was facing trial in the Co
The verification of character and antecedents is crucial in determining suitability for appointment, and the rules in force must be followed for fixing seniority.
The decision highlights the importance of character and antecedent verification for uniformed services, the finality of the Selection Committee's decision, and the inability to claim retrospective se....
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
The appointment date and seniority of a candidate should be based on their exam rank, and failure to communicate potential loss of seniority can be held against the authorities.
The respondent, having succeeded in his Petition for appointment, was entitled to all benefits admissible to him, and the inaction of the appellants infringed his fundamental rights.
Seniority in public service must follow the order of merit per category, prohibiting inter-category comparisons, and claims made after inordinate delay are unsustainable.
The court established that seniority must be fixed retrospectively, and actions that undermine an employee's rightful promotion based on ignored ACRs are impermissible and require rectification.
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
