2008 (8) TMI 1018 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the panel preparation for promotion.
2. Application of the Tribunal's judgment to similarly placed individuals.
3. Compliance with statutory rules regarding promotion and seniority.
4. Discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the panel preparation for promotion:
The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in 1973 and promoted as an Assistant in 1983. He argued that he was qualified for promotion in 1980 after passing the required departmental tests but was not included in the panel for promotion due to administrative lapses. The petitioner contended that Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules mandates that a panel should be prepared every year and is valid only for one year. However, no panel was prepared until 1984, leading to the promotion of his juniors ahead of him. The respondents argued that the panels prepared between 1973 and 1979 were valid and promotions were made accordingly. The court found that the respondents had failed to draw panels for each year as required by Rule 4(a), and the administrative instructions to keep a panel alive for more than one year were contrary to the rule.

2. Application of the Tribunal's judgment to similarly placed individuals:
The petitioner cited a Tribunal judgment in O.A.No. 7331 of 2001, where it was held that the denial of promotion to seniors due to the use of outdated panels was illegal. The Tribunal had directed the promotion of Mr. Amurudeen, a similarly placed individual, with retrospective effect. The respondents argued that the Tribunal's judgment was applicable only to Mr. Amurudeen. The court examined whether the Tribunal's judgment was "in rem" (binding on all similarly placed individuals) or "in personam" (binding only on the parties involved). The court concluded that the judgment was "in rem" and applicable to all similarly placed individuals, including the petitioner.

3. Compliance with statutory rules regarding promotion and seniority:
The petitioner argued that as per Rule 30(b) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, he was eligible for promotion in 1980 after passing the required tests. The respondents contended that the petitioner was promoted in 1983 based on his seniority and the date of passing the tests. The court found that the respondents had not followed the statutory rules regarding the preparation of panels and promotions, leading to the wrongful denial of promotion to the petitioner.

4. Discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that denying him the benefits of the Tribunal's judgment was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The court agreed, stating that once the Tribunal's judgment was implemented for Mr. Amurudeen, denying the same benefit to the petitioner would be discriminatory.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to promote the petitioner as an Assistant from 1981 and consequently promote him to the post of Superintendent with effect from 16.6.2000, extending all monetary and service benefits retrospectively. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.