COMMON ORDER

W.P(MD).No.15793 of 2016 has been filed challenging two orders of the Director of Local Fund Audit. The temporary promotion given to Typists/Junior Assistants to the post of Assistant Inspector was regularized from the date of their temporary promotion. The third impugned order was also passed by the Director of Local Fund Audit which is a combined seniority list wherein the promotees were placed above the directly recruited Assistant Inspector. Based upon the impugned combined seniority list, the Director of Local Fund Audit had published a provisional panel on 10.09.2016. This temporary panel is under challenge in W.P(MD).No.18007 of 2016.

2.Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions are connected, they are tagged together and a common order is passed.

(A)Facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:

3.As per Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Local Fund Audit Subordinate Service Rules, the post of Assistant Inspector falls under category-II. The said post has two sources of appointment, namely direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the post of Junior Assistant and Steno-Typist or Typist in the Local Fund Audit Department. The ratio for appointment by direct recruitment and by recruitment by transfer to the post of Assistant Inspector shall be 4:1. The fact that the petitioners and the respondents are governed by the above said rules is not in dispute.

4.The petitioners herein were appointed as Assistant Inspectors through direct recruitment in the month of July 2013. The respondents in the writ petitions were originally appointed as Junior Assistants/Steno-Typists or Typists in the said Department and they were temporarily promoted by transfer of service to the post of Assistant Inspector between 2010 to 2014. In the promotion order, it was specifically mentioned that it is a temporary promotion as contemplated under Rule-10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. (hereinafter referred at as “ Rules”)

5.By two impugned orders dated 20.07.2016, the temporary promotion granted was regularised with effect from the original date of promotion, based on the estimated vacancies for the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. A perusal of these two impugned orders indicate that though their promotion was on a temporary basis, they were fully qualified to hold the said post on the date of their temporary promotion. It further states that the said promotions were approved by the Committee appointed by the Government.

6.Based upon these two impugned orders, the promotees were placed over and above the directly recruited Assistant Inspectors in a combined seniority list that was published by the third respondent by way of third impugned order dated 20.07.2016.

7.Based upon the above said combined seniority list, a provisional panel was prepared and published by the third respondent on 10.09.2016 for the promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector. These four orders are under challenge in the above said writ petition by the directly recruited Assistant Inspectors.

(B)Contentions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing in both the writ petitions are as follows:

8.The two impugned orders regularizing the temporary promotion of the promotees was issued in July 2016 granting retrospective regularization of promotion with effect from the date of their temporary promotion order. These two orders granting retrospective regularization of promotion are illegal and they are unsustainable in law.

9.If a temporary promotion is effected under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the period of temporary promotion shall not be calculated for probation under the said rules and they shall not be entitled to any preferential claim to future appointment to the said service. They are liable to be terminated at any time without any reason being assigned.

10. In view of the said service rules, the services of the respondents herein in the temporary promotional