9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1379 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxValidity of the inter se seniority list published by the department - whether the claim of the petitioners that they having been appointed directly through the Public Service Commission, of the year 1972, have a right to be appointed substantively to a permanent post borne on the cadre displacing transference officers holding the same during the interregnum of the vacancy causar by reason of retirement, death, resignation or promotion of the directly recruited permanent holders of that post? HELD THAT - This Court would not have normally entertained writ petitions in a case where even the provisional seniority list has not been published. It is also a settled law that writ petitions cannot be entertained on mere apprehensions. However, the present case falls under a special category. The litigation with regard to the present case had started nearly 35 years back and already it reached up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court twice and thereafter, before the Division Bench which ultimately made it clear that whatever has been settled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not be permitted to be re-agitated or reopened. Paragraph 20 of the judgment in W.A.No.2280 of 2011 2016 (8) TMI 1514 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has already been extracted supra and it makes the position very clear in no uncertain terms. In fact the Division Bench while passing the order on 19.06.1986, had interfered with a provisional seniority list since it found the list to be against the rules. The learned Additional Advocate General has made it clear to this Court that the Government is not taking sides either with the direct recruits or with the transferries and the Government wants to implement the orders of this Court. The learned Additional Advocate General also made it clear that no attempt is being made to tamper with the settled seniority and the official respondents are bound by the findings of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2280 of 2011. The stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General is further strengthened by the rejection order issued to one Mr.Palani on 20.12.2019, extracted supra, where the department has made its stand very clear to the effect that G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 24.08.2012 has become final and therefore, there is no question of revisiting the seniority lists / consequential lists. It is further clear from the later Government orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 11.06.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 02.08.2013 that G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 24.08.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.139 have been followed up and further promotions have been given by maintaining the consequential seniority list in the State service. The apprehension of the petitioners is that by doing this exercise, whatever benefits that have already enured to the transferries and which have been finalized by the earlier Division Bench in W.A.No.2280 of 2011, are attempted to be revisited. According to them, whatever is done, should not result in reopening or revisiting a settled seniority even in the consequential seniority in the State service. That is the reason why, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that apprehension is not on the publication of the provisional seniority list. But the real apprehension is that an attempt is made to unsettle a seniority list that has already become final - In the provisional seniority list that was sent to this Court, the procedure that was followed up for the preparation of the seniority list has been explained. What becomes clear is that, the position of the transferries has been rearranged and they have been placed below the direct recruits who came into the State service to the post of Assistant Commissioner. This obviously means that the consequential seniority that resulted from G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 24.08.2012 has been revisited to that extent the apprehensions of the petitioners stands vindicated. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2280 of 2011 2016 (8) TMI 1514 - MADRAS HIGH COURT at Paragraph No.20 has made it abundantly clear that the seniority list that was placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and which was agreed by all the parties concerned, cannot be revisited and there cannot be any deviation with regard to the promotions subsequently claimed by them. The language used by the Division Bench is straight and simple and this Court cannot be called to given an interpretation to these specific findings. If at all the official respondents had any doubts, they should have got it clarified before the Division Bench and such clarification cannot be given by a Single Judge. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the inter se seniority list. 2. Compliance with the Supreme Court and High Court judgments. 3. Publication of seniority lists and subsequent promotions. 4. Government's attempt to revisit and revise the seniority lists. 5. Impact on promotions and seniority due to proposed revisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Inter Se Seniority List: The dispute began in 1985 when directly recruited Assistant Commercial Tax Officers (ACTOs) challenged the inter se seniority list prepared by the Commercial Tax Department. The contention was that the recruitment by transfer exceeded the stipulated percentage, leading to anomalies in the seniority list. The Division Bench in Sundararajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu quashed the provisional seniority list and select lists of Deputy Commercial Tax Officers (DCTOs) for the years 1982 to 1985, stating that the seniority should be fixed based on the commencement of probation and year of appointment. 2. Compliance with the Supreme Court and High Court Judgments: The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, emphasizing that temporary or ad hoc appointments could not claim seniority over direct recruits. The Court directed the department to publish a fresh seniority list in compliance with these principles. Despite the Supreme Court's dismissal of the State Government's appeal, the department delayed publishing the revised seniority list, leading to contempt proceedings. 3. Publication of Seniority Lists and Subsequent Promotions: The department eventually published the seniority list on 04.05.2009, covering the period from 1968 to 2006. This list was challenged again by promotees from ministerial services, but the High Court dismissed these petitions in 2011. Further attempts to reopen the seniority issue were made, leading to the filing of Writ Appeals and subsequent judgments by the Division Bench in 2016, which reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 4. Government's Attempt to Revisit and Revise the Seniority Lists: Despite the finality of previous judgments, the Government attempted to revisit the seniority list based on recommendations by a High-Level Committee. This led to the filing of multiple writ petitions by affected parties, fearing that the settled seniority would be disturbed. The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the seniority list agreed upon and placed before the Supreme Court could not be revisited or reopened. 5. Impact on Promotions and Seniority Due to Proposed Revisions: The petitioners argued that any attempt to revise the seniority list would adversely affect their promotions and seniority. The High Court directed that the seniority list and subsequent promotions must comply with the Division Bench's judgment and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court also directed the Government to consider promotions for eligible petitioners based on the approved seniority list and to create supernumerary posts to address any discrepancies without disturbing the settled seniority. Conclusion: The High Court's judgment reinforced the finality of the seniority list as settled by the Supreme Court and Division Bench. It directed the Government to adhere to the established principles while preparing and publishing the seniority lists and making promotions. The Court also provided specific directions to ensure that the settled seniority and promotions were not disturbed, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial decisions and ensuring fairness in the administrative process.
|
