Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 35731
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N.SESHASAYE, P.VADAMALA, JJ
ARTHANARI – Appellant
Versus
VR.Palanivelrajan – Respondent
W.A(MD) Nos.301, 352, 1198 and 1249 of 2020
Mr.T.Lajapathiroy Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman, Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Louis, Mr.R.Baskaran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader, Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayaraj for M/s.Veera Associates
Temporary appointees cannot claim seniority over regular appointees, and promotions must adhere to established seniority rules.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules - Seniority and appointment procedures - The controversy revolves around the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees for the post of Assistant Inspectors of Local Fund Audit, with a prescribed ratio of 4:1 for appointments. The learned Single Judge quashed G.O. (Ms) No.261, dated 24.06.2009, which allowed retrospective regularization of promotees, affirming that temporary appointees cannot claim seniority over regular appointees. (Paras 2, 6.1, 11.2)
(B) Seniority - The court emphasized that direct recruits can only claim seniority from their date of regular appointment, and temporary appointees must yield their positions to regular recruits. (Paras 6.2, 11.3)
(C) Government Orders - The court quashed G.O. (Ms) No.373, dated 20.11.2018, and G.O. (Ms) No.160, dated 24.05.2019, for failing to comply with prior court orders regarding seniority. (Paras 14, 15.2)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a common order regarding the seniority of Assistant Inspectors, where direct recruits challenged the retrospective regularization of temporary promotees, leading to multiple litigations since 2008.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the learned Single Judge's order, emphasizing adherence to the prescribed seniority rules and the necessity for comprehensive reporting on the seniority issue.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the seniority list and the retrospective regularization of temporary promotees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that temporary appointees cannot claim seniority over regular appointees, and any promotions must align with established seniority rules.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE, J.)
1. The challenge in this batch of four appeals is to a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.23740 of 2018 and W.P.(MD) No.12649 of 2019, dated 30.01.2020, both of which are filed by the respondent Palanivelrajan. Of the four, two appeals are preferred by the State and the other two appeals are preferred by some of the private respondents as well as third parties who felt aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge.
2. The post of Assistant Inspectors of Local Fund Audit is the lowest rung in the hierarchy and it is the feeder category for the next promotional post of Deputy Inspector of Local Fund Audit, which in turn serves as the feeder category for Inspector of Local Fund Audit and the ladder goes up. So far as appointment to the post of Assistant Inspectors is concerned, as earlier stated, it is filled up by two separate channel of appointment: (i) one is by Direct Recruitment (hereinafter would be referred to as the direct recruitees); and (ii) the other is through transfer and promotion from among those who are below the cadre of the Assistant Inspector of Local Fund Audit from the same Department or from the State Trading Scheme Department (henceforth would be termed as the promotees). And, the ratio of appointment by direct recruitment to the transfer-promotion is 4:1. The controversy here relates to the inter se seniority as between those who are transferred and promoted to the post of Assistant Inspectors of Local Fund Audit, and those who are directly appointed to the said post. And, this batch of cases is one among in the series of cases which started in 2008. The facts unfold as below:
a) According to the direct-recruitees, prior to 2001, the TNPSC did not notify the vacancies to the post of Assistant Inspector, though there was an aborted attempt for the year 1994-1995. As a result, the Director of Local Fund Audit filled up the vacancies of Assistant Inspector which were required to be filled up through direct recruitment by transfer and promotion from junior cadre. According to the direct recruitees TNPSC has notified the vacancies for the year 1996-1999, and commenced the selection process and it culminated in the appointment of direct recruitees in 2001. In the meantime, appointment to the post of Assistant Inspector was made by transfer from lower cadre temporarily.
b) Even though temporary filling up of vacancies was permitted under the Service Rules, yet such temporary appointment cannot be counted for promotion.
c) While so, a combined seniority list dated 18.12.2007 came to be published without reference to 4:1 quota and it came to be challenged by the direct recruitees in W.P.(MD) Nos.3823 of 2008 and 6508 of 2008.
d) During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Government issued G.O. (Ms).No.261, Finance (Local Fund) Department, dated 24.06.2009 which prescribed the procedure for regularisation of the promotees retrospectively from 15.03.1994. Pursuant to G.O.261, the Director of Local Fund Audit issued a consequential order regularising Assistant Inspectors in Sl.Nos. 109 to 280 retrospectively. This pendente lite developments resulted in an amendment to the prayers in the writ petitions and accordingly G.O.261 too was challenged. The issue before the Court was well captured by the learned single Judge and it is worthy of reproduction of paragraph 3.3 to 3.7 of the order dated 26.02.2010 as below:
“3.3.It is the complaint of the petitioners that due to the failure of recruitment in the earlier years, the posts of Assistant Inspectors have been filled up only by transfer of service or temporary officiation from among the holder of posts of Junior Assistants or Steno Typists or Typists in the Local Fund Audit Department and State Trading Scheme Department without following the above said ratio of 4:1. Even though under Rule 39(a)(i) of the General Rules temporary promotions could be made, the seniority has to be fi
