Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
C. Anand & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 27877 of 2022 & W.M.P. No. 27171 of 2022
Decided on : 06-03-2024
Recruitment - Subordinate Judicial Service - G.O.Ms.No.40 Home (Courts-V) Department dated 11.01.2008 - Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules - Rule 9(2), Rule 6 - Direct Recruitment and Appointment by Transfer of Service - Promotion Claim - Dismissal of Writ Petition
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the Recruitment Notification No.171 of 2022 dated 24.07.2022 for direct recruitment to various posts in the Subordinate Judicial Service, contending that it infringes the right of promotion for the petitioners who were appointed as Office Assistants and sought promotion to higher posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claim for promotion to the notified posts was not supported by the Service Rules and the Service Law Jurisprudence. It emphasized that the petitioners could only be considered for promotion or appointment by way of transfer of service when an administrative decision is taken to fill up the posts earmarked for such actions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to promotion to the posts of Examiner, Reader, Senior Bailiff, Junior Bailiff, Xerox Operator, and Lift Operator in the Subordinate Judicial Service, despite the recruitment notification for direct recruitment to these posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' claim for promotion was not supported by the Service Rules, which provided for a ratio of 1:1 for direct recruitment and appointment by way of transfer of service. It emphasized that the petitioners could only be considered for promotion or appointment by way of transfer of service when an administrative decision is taken to fill up the posts earmarked for such actions.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court found no infirmity in the impugned Direct Recruitment Notification for the posts of Examiner, Reader, Senior Bailiff, Junior Bailiff, Xerox Operator, and Lift Operator.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned notification no.171 dated 24.07.2022, in respect of Salem District, and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Junior Bailiff, Xerox Operator, Examiner, Reader and Senior Bailiff in Salem District according to their educational qualification, experience certificate and service seniority by considering the petitioners common representation dated 12.092022.)
1. The Recruitment Notification No.171 of 2022 dated 24.07.2022 published for direct recruitment to the posts of Examiner, Reader, Senior Bailif, Junior Bailiff, Xerox Operator and Lift Operator in the Sub-ordinate Judicial Service is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
2. The writ petitioners were appointed to the post of Office Assistants on 12.02.2018. The petitioners are continuing in the Judicial Department for about 6 years. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the impugned notification for direct recruitment is infringing the right of promotion to the post of Examiner, Reader, Senior Bailiff, Junior Bailiff, Xerox Operator, Lift Operator all are in Sub-ordinate Judicial Services. Thus, they have challenged the Recruitment Notification.
3. At the first instance, Mr.B.Vijay, learned Counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the process of recruitment concluded and the selected candidates were appointed in service. However, Mr.V.Neethidurai, learned Counsel for the petitioners raised objections by stating that the appointments made pursuant to the impugned recruitment notification is subject to the result of the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is to be heard on merits.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were appointed as Office Assistants in the year 2018 and they became eligible for promotion to the post of Examiner, Reader, Senior Bailiff, Junior Bailiff, Xerox Operator and Lift Operator in Sub-ordinate Judicial Service. The entire vacant posts in the above categories are sought to be filled up through direct recruitment, which is in violation of the Service Rules in force. As per the Service Rules, the respondents are bound to fill up the above posts only by way of promotion and the remaining vacancies are to be filled up through direct recruitment. However, such procedures have not be adopted, which caused deprivation of the right of the petitioners to secure promotion to the Higher posts.
4.1 In this context, the learned Counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court with reference to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.40 Home (Courts-V) Department dated 11.01.2008. In the said Government Order, the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission on improvement of service conditions of Non-judicial staff of Sub Ordinate courts in Tamil Nadu were accepted by the Government. Accordingly, the post of Junior Bailiff are to be filled up by promotion/by transfer and by direct recruitment with the prescribed qualification. It is further stated that there is no ceiling in existence for appointment as Junior Bailiff by promotion. Relying on the said G.O., the petitioner would submit that they are entitled for promotion. Therefore, the recruitment notification is to be set aside and all those posts are to be filled up only through promotion/recruitment by transfer of service.
5. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Counsel for the respondents would strenuously oppose by stating that the case of the petitioners are absolutely mis-conceived. They have not projected the Service Rules in a right perspective. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners are untenable.
5.1 To substantiate, Mr.B.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to promotion or appointment by way of transfer of service accrues to employees only when an administrative decision is taken to fill....
The right for promotion has to be considered only in the light of the existing rules in force on the date of consideration to the next level of promotion.
The absence of a prescribed ratio for filling up vacant posts does not violate fundamental rights if the service conditions of the petitioner have not been altered to his detriment.
A completed recruitment process cannot be challenged unless there are legal violations in the appointment orders.
Rule 3(g) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules interpreted disjunctively; satisfaction of either limb (no promotional avenues or lower pay) suffices for recruitment by transfer.
The post of Tracer must be filled by direct recruitment as per the 1979 Rules, and the petitioner was ineligible for promotion from the post of Peon.
Promotions must respect established recruitment rules and rights to vacancies depend on inclusion in a valid rank list at the time of vacancy occurrence.
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
