Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16711
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
A.RAMESH – Appellant
Versus
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent
The court reinforced that seniority must be determined by merit, not roster points, but also emphasized the importance of timely legal action in service law disputes.
Headnote:
Promotion - Sub Registrar - Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of service) Act - Section 40 - The court prioritized merit-based seniority over roster point seniority in promotions, reinforcing decisions from previous Supreme Court rulings and reminding State authorities of their obligations to comply with such judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the promotion panel for District Registrars, asserting that seniority should be based on merit, as per prior Supreme Court rulings, and sought revising the seniority lists post-2003 against roster point selection.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the petitioners had knowledge of the issues but delayed too long to act, which is critical in service law matters. The court opted not to disturb established seniority lists, invoking laches as a reason for dismissal.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could successfully challenge the panel for promotions based on merits rather than roster seniority and if their delayed grievance was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners were barred from relief due to laches, as they failed to act promptly despite knowing the alleged illegalities for several years.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed on grounds of laches and no costs.
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the panel of Sub Registrar Grade I for promotion to the category of District Registrar for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively in view of G.O. No.87 dated 04.08.2010 and G.O. 103 dated 09.08.2011 and in respect of the consequential promotions made pursuant to the same category of District Registrar to Assistant Inspector General and quash the same insofar as petitioners batch (viz. selected by 3rd respondent to appointments to the category of SR Gr.II for the vacancies for 1996-1999) and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to revise the seniority in the category of Sub-Registrar Gr-I and in the category of District Registrar applying catchup rule as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh – II (1999) 7 SCC 209 insofar as the petitioners batch is concerned and revise the seniority and consequently, to provide all the service and monetary benefits.
2. Heard Mr.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader for 4th respondent and Mr.R.Baranidharan, learned counsel for 3rd respondent.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they were selected for appointment through Direct recruitment as Sub Registrar Grade II in the year 1999. The further case of the petitioners is that they joined the service in the year 2001 and their next seniority list was issued in the year 2006.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that from 1996 onwards, the
3rd respondent in collusion with the then incumbent Secretary to the 4th respondent started selecting candidates first by filing up 31% General turn by selecting meritorious candidates and thereafter, selecting candidates for filling up the reserved category turns. According to the petitioners, as per the judgement of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh – II (1999) 7 SCC 209, the fixation of seniority should be based only on merit and should not be based on the roster point seniority.
5. In the light of the above illegal methodology that was followed, the petitioners were aggrieved with regard to the fixation of the interse seniority.
6. In the meantime, a challenge came before the Division Bench of this Court questioning the seniority that was done as per the roaster point instead of being reckoned on merits. The Division Bench held that the seniority should be on the basis of merit recommended by TNPSC and not as per the roster point. An appeal that was filed against the judgement of the Division Bench was also affirmed by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court held that after the judgement in Bimlesh Tanwar case the principle that governs the determination of seniority was only on the basis of merit list and not as per the basis of roster point.
7. The directions were not implemented and as a result, contempt petitions were filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court while dealing with the contempt petitions passed an order on 18.04.2023 and the relevant potions are extracted hereunder :-
16. We are of the view that though it can be said that even after the judgement of the Indira Sawhney(supra) on 16th November 1992, the State could not have prepared the merit list on the basis of roster point, we find that it will not be appropriate to reopen the issues from as early as 1992. We find that in case, once the law was pronounced by this Court specifically in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar (Supra), the State was bound to follow the same.
17. We therefore, though are not inclined to disturb the seniority lists which are finalised prior to 18th March, 2003 wherein the benefit is granted to either of the parties i.e as per the roster or as per the Seniority list, the seniority list finalised after 10th march, 2003 will have to be re-visited in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra) and the first judg
