COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

This batch of writ petitions have been instituted challenging the 6th proviso to Annexure III of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules relating to the post of Deputy Tahsildar requiring five years of service as Assistant for direct recruit Assistants for inclusion of the petitioners' names in the list of eligible approved candidates for the post of Deputy Tahsildar is unconstitutional and null and void.

2. The post of Assistant in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service is filled through two modes, one by direct recruitment and another by way of promotion from the feeder category of Junior Assistants. The next avenue for promotion to the post of Assistant is Deputy Tahsildar in the Revenue Department. Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules contemplates the experience required for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar since the said post requires performance of special duties in Revenue Department. Sixth proviso to Annexure 3 of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, which is impugned in these writ petitions reads as under:

“ Provided also that an Assistant appointed by direct recruitment in the Office of the Board of Revenue shall be eligible for inclusion of his name in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars for Madras City, on competitive basis, after completion of a total service of five years, if he has passed all the prescribed tests and undergone training as Firkha Revenue Inspector for two years successfully and is otherwise qualified.”

3. No doubt. as per the arguments advanced by Mr.Palani Selvaraj on behalf of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.21806 of 2017, difference service experiences have been prescribed for the promotees as well as to the direct recruits. In the present case, five years of experience in the post of Assistant has been prescribed for directly recruited Assistants and four years of experience has been prescribed for the Promotees. The petitioners would contend that prescribing 4 years and 5 years experience for the employees working in the cadre of Assistant is discriminatory.

4. In this regard, Mr.Palani Selvaraj would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.K.Ponnusamy -vs- Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (1994) Supplementary 3 SCC 376.

5. This Court has considered the facts relating to the said judgment, in which the post of District Revenue Officers in comparison with Deputy Collectors was dealt with. Therefore, the facts are not similar. Question arises whether a comparison can be made regarding the prescription of educational qualifications and experience for promotion to a particular post in Government departments.

6. Prescription of educational qualification, age criteria, experience etc., are the prerogative of the Government and its policy decision. Such prescription can be questioned only if the same violates any of the provisions of the State or ultravires to the Constitution. In the present case, the only ground raised is discrimination. However, the basis for prescribing 5 years experience for directly recruited Assistants and 4 years experience for Promotee Assistants has been set out in its counter as under:

" 5) With regard to the averments made in Para 4 and 5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner himself admitted the fact that 8 years of service as Junior Assistant / Assistant is required for a promotee Assistant for being included in the Deputy Tahsildar Panel, in which four year service is to be in Assistant Cadre as per Rule 7(a) read with Annexure III of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service. The eight years period is inclusive of Foundation Training at the Civil Service Training Institute, Bhavanisagar and Survey and Maintenance training. As such the 5 years period for directly recruited Assistant is inclusive of clerical training, Foundation Training at Bhavanisagar and Survey and Maintenance Training. The post of Deputy Tahsildar i