2011 (4) TMI 1518 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the seniority list of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers (A.C.T.Os.) for the years 1968 to 2006.
2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines and previous judgments.
3. Inclusion of temporary posts in the cadre strength for seniority purposes.
4. Alleged violation of rules and principles of seniority fixation.
5. Application of the "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Seniority List:
The primary issue in these writ petitions is the challenge to the seniority list of A.C.T.Os. published by the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order communicating the inter-se seniority list for the years 1968 to 2006. The impugned order was passed following the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1454 of 1987.

2. Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines:
The Supreme Court had previously laid down guidelines for drawing the seniority list, including:
- Each year should be taken as a unit for fixing inter-se seniority.
- Persons not actually appointed in a year should not be included in that year.
- The date of probation commencement is the criterion for fixing inter-se seniority.
- Temporary appointments should not fill vacancies reserved for direct recruits.

The State of Tamil Nadu did not challenge these guidelines but only the direction regarding the expression "permanent cadre strength." The Supreme Court affirmed that temporary appointments do not confer any right to claim seniority over regularly appointed officers.

3. Inclusion of Temporary Posts in Cadre Strength:
The petitioners argued that the cadre of A.C.T.Os. included temporary posts, citing G.O.Ms. No. 1374 CT and RE Dept., dated 28.10.1988. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence that the cadre strength included temporary posts. The Court held that temporary appointments made under Rule 10(a)(i) or 39(a) of the General Rules were stopgap arrangements and did not confer seniority rights.

4. Alleged Violation of Rules and Principles of Seniority Fixation:
The petitioners contended that their appointments were regular and not temporary or ad hoc. They argued that the seniority list violated the principles of seniority fixation by placing them below junior direct recruits. The Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that seniority is determined by the date of appointment to a cadre post. The Court also noted that temporary posts were made permanent prospectively from 04.01.2010, and thus, the petitioners could not claim seniority over those appointed to cadre posts.

5. Application of the "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation":
The petitioners invoked the "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation," arguing that their long service should entitle them to seniority. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that legitimate expectation cannot override the rules and guidelines established by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The Court upheld the seniority list, concluding that the petitioners, holding temporary posts, could not claim seniority over those appointed to permanent cadre posts. The Court emphasized that the impugned order complied with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court, and no grounds were made out to interfere with it. Consequently, all writ petitions were dismissed.