COMMON ORDER

The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that her period of maternity leave during probation period should be treated as duty period. Therefore, her seniority should be restored and seniority list published by the respondent should be quashed and rejection order passed by the respondent should be set aside.

2. The petitioner is originally appointed as Assistant (DRA) in the Tiruvallur District on 03.01.2023. In that cadre, she has completed the probation on 09.02.2016. After reorganisation of Chennai district, the petitioner was transferred to Chennai district, she joined the duty on 09.08.2018. The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar in Chennai district from 07.01.2019 and she was in the period of probation for the period of two years. However, during the probation period, she availed the maternity leave for a period of nine months from 07.03.2020 to 01.12.2020 as per the G.O.Ms.No.154, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-II) Department dated 05.12.2017. After the period of maternity leave, the petitioner's service has been regularised and her probation was declared in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar on 06.01.2022. Hence, it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that her leave period from 07.03.2020 to 01.12.2020 was not treated as full service period for the purpose of declaration of completion of full service.

3. According to the petitioner, if the said period is counted as duty, her probation would be completed on 06.04.2021. The crucial date of promotion for the post of Deputy Tahsildar is 30.06.2021. The panel was prepared by the fifth respondent on 09.05.2022. However, the petitioner's name has been omitted. Thereafter, all her juniors have been promoted as Tahsildars based upon the seniority panel. Hence, the impugned order has been challenged.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the maternity leave should be considered as duty period, wherein, the petitioner is entitled to avail the maternity leave with full pay protection and the same should be treated as duty period. In this regard, he relied upon the Order of this Court in W.P.MD.No.8657 of 2016 dated 06.04.2022 and W.P.No.7699 of 2018 dated 08.09.2022.

5. It is also submitted that even the Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, an amendment has been brought, wherein, it is clearly stipulated the period of absence from training by probationers will be treated as Extra Ordinary Leave. However, the same will not affect the seniority of the probationers in the Indian Administrative Service. It is the further contention that Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, an amendment has been brought, wherein, it is clearly stated that when a female member is on maternity leave during her probation period, the leave period should be treated as on duty during the probation. However, no such Rule is specifically applicable in Tamil Nadu. Hence, it is the contention that even in the absence of any Rule when women employee are given the benefit under the Scheme of the Government to extend the maternity leave period should be treated as on duty and probation should not be extended to such candidates. Therefore, it is the contention that the petitioner should be entitled to restoration of seniority and her period of leave during probation should be treated as duty. Therefore, she is also entitled to restoration of the seniority and seeks to quash the panel.

6. In the counter, it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner's name was omitted in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2021 as the crucial date for promotion for the post of Tahsildar was on 30.06.2021. On that date, the petitioner was only a probationer. Further, it is the contention that as per Rule 8(a) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, every person appointed as Deputy Tahsildar shall from the date on which he joins duty, by on probation for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of