9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. - Mr. N. Anand Venkatesh, J. For Petitioner: Mr.V.Prakash for M/s.K.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, Mr.M.Hariharan, Mr.N.L.Raja, M/s.Dakshayani Reddy, Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma COMMON ORDER There are cases which are not destined to end and these batch of Writ Petitions are falling into such a category. The tussle between the direct recruits/transfer recruits/promotees started in the year 1985, in the Commercial Tax Department and this is the third time the issue has again come up before this Court. 2.The first round of litigation started in the year 1985, when the directly recruited Assistant Commercial Tax Officers [hereinafter referred as ACTO ] came before this Court and challenged the validity of the inter se seniority list published by the department. The issue that was raised before this Court was that the post of ACTO can be filled up under the Rules both thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T.Os. for the year 1972-73. The recruitment to the post of A.C.T.Os. is governed by Tamil Nadu Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter called the special Rules). The recruitment is (a) by transfer from among the Assistants and Gujarathi knowing Assistants employed in the Commercial Taxes Department or Assistants and Superintendents in the office of the Sales-tax appellate Tribunal, Madras or Assistants and Superintendents working in the Commercial Tax Branch of the Board of Revenue or Assistants in the Revenue Department of Secretariat coming under one unit and (b) by direct recruitment. The next higher category in this subordinate Service is, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. In recruitment to this category is by promotion from A.C.T.Os. and by transfer. For promotion of A.C.T.Os. as D.C.T.Os., a list of approved candidates has to be prepared as required under rule 3 of the Special Rules. Previously the unit for appointment to the category of D.C.T.Os. and A.C.T.O.s. was the Commercial Tax (Composite Division) in the State. There were sour such divisions till G.O.Ms.No.679, C.T. R.E. dated 29.7.1980 was passed. By the said G.O., the Government have directed that one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it for fixing the inter se seniority. 2.Persons not actually appointed in the year 1966 should not be included n 1966 year' list and that seniority should be determined with reference to the date of their joining as Joint Commercial Tax Officer, and 3.The date on which an officer commences probation is the proper criterion for fixing the inter se seniority. The above three principles had the approval of the Supreme Court. Of course, principles No.2 does not arise in this case. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that in fixing the inter se seniority each year should be taken as a unit and that the commencement of probation is the proper criterion. 13.The further and important question is 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. It is to be remembered that under rule 2 (b) of the Special Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate General and also of Mr.S.Ramalingam, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 29 that eve though the officers appointed under rule 10(a) (1) or 39(a) of the General Rules, for the purpose of seniority their probation commences from the date of their first appointment cannot be accepted. A conjoint reading of rules 2(1) to (3) of the preliminary Rules along with rules 6 to 8 of the General Rules (which have already been set out above) will clearly show that the officers temporarily appointed by recruitment by transfer to fill up the vacancy caused in the reserved category of direct recruitment cannot commence probation earlier than those who are regularly recruited through service Commission directly as A.C.T.Os. Even though at a later point or time. We hold that in the light of the above conclusion, the following principle emerges. 16.If these are vacancies out of the required reservation of 40% in the permanent cadre of A.C.T.Os. for direct recruits, any appointment made either by transfer or by promotion cannot be utilised to fill up those vacancies. Such appointments being of a temporary character. Whenever direct recruits are appointed through public service Commission, they b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the learned counsel that all those persons who are holding the temporary posts prior to the appointment of the writ petitioners should also be considered for the purpose of fixing the seniority and they should not be omitted out of consideration. Learned counsel for the state contended that temporary appointment toa permanent post is different from regular appointment to a temporary post. 4.The argument is attractive. But in the records made available in this Court or in the High Court, there is nothing to show that the cadre strength was fixed by the Government in any particular year to comprise not only permanent posts but also temporary posts. The relevant discussion found in the judgment of the High Court on this aspect of the matter shows that the Statement Government did not place any record before the High Court to disprove the contention on behalf of the writ petitioners that the transferee appointees were appointed only under Rule 10(a)(1) or 39(a) of the General Rules. Those two Rules relate to temporary stop gap arrangements which can be made in cases of emergency. They are intended to meet an immediate necessity so that the administration may not suffer and in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the cadre. It is advantageous to quote para 23 of the judgment of the High Court which reads as follows.: In the light of the discussion, the impugned seniority list of A.C.T.Os. S.Nos.29 to 159, the placements are given to transferee A.C.T.Os. belonging to either 50% reserved category or 10% reserved category. It follows from the principle now formulated that the A.C.T.Os. bearing S.Nos.129 to 519 in the impugned seniority list can be placed above the petitioners in inter--se seniority list only if they had hold the post substantively within the permanent cadre strength allotted to the particular category even before the petitioners commenced their probation. Such of those who do not comply with the above requirement must be placed below the petitioners in the inter se seniority list. 10.We are entirely in agreement with the above view. There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment completely concurred with the judgment of the Division Bench. 5.Even after the judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government and the Commercial Tax Department did not publi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tand possibly on account of the importance of the offices held by these officers and with an endeavour to find some 'equitable solution'. The dispute, however, has not been resolved resulting in the appeals we are hearing along with certain writ petitions. 4.The parties in the present matters, thus, agree that the four principles as set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1454 of 1987 decided on 10.02.1999 (between State of Tamil Nadu vs. S.Sundararaj Others), which formed the basis of the Division Bench Judgment, would undoubtedly apply and they are extracted as under from the Supreme Court judgment: 1.Each year should be taken as a unit for fixing the inter se seniority. 2.Persons not actually appointed in the year 1966 should not be included in 1966 year's list and that seniority should be determined with reference to the date of their joining as Joint Commercial Tax Officer, and 3.The date on which an officer commences probation is the proper criterion for fixing the inter se seniority. 4.If there are vacancies out of the required reservation of 20% in the permanent cadre of A.C.T.Os. for direct recruits, any appointment made either by transfer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is their contention that the seniority list already drawn up does not meet the parameters, while the stand of the promotees is that it meets the parameters. 7. We may also note that all this is of coursesubject to the Court disagreeing with the submission of Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel because if he succeeds, then everything will go. '' In the aforesaid, the reference in para 7 is to the submissions in the writ appeal referred to aforesaid. 6.It is, thus, agreed that if the aforesaid statement is implemented in its true letter and spirit, there would be no lis inter se the parties. 7.We may note that the learned Senior Counsel for the impleaded respondents in W.P.No.17251 of 2016 seeks to persuade usw that as a temporary measure, the promotees who are awaiting promotion and may be nearing retirement should be permitted to be promoted against the post of direct recruits. We are afraid that this is something which we cannot permit because this is exactly what has created the controversy in the past. 8.In view of the aforesaid agreed arrangement, we dispose of the writ appeals and the writ petitions with the direction to the State Government to initially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evance with regard to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he has to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking necessary clarifications, as the seniority list placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been agreed to by all the parties concerned. Therefore, it is for the appellant to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for clarification of the judgment, if so advised. 13.It is clear from the above judgment of the Division Bench that the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was again reiterated and the Division Bench did not allow the matter to be re agitated and it was made clear that the seniority list that was placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the contempt proceedings and which was agreed by all the parties cannot be revised or reopened again. It was brought to the notice of this Court that this judgment of the Division Bench has been taken on appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is pending. 14.In the meantime, Government orders were passed publishing the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Joint Commissioners in G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 24.08.2012, G.O.Ms.No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inter se seniority dispute. According to the petitioners, this attempt made by the department is clearly illegal and what was already settled before this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is attempted to be reopened. 18.Four Writ Petitions have been filed. W.P.No.9257 and 9326 of 2018 have been filed to forbear the respondents from in any manner disturbing the seniority positions published up to the post of Deputy Commissioner. Out of this one of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.9257/2018, retired as a Joint Commissioner during the pendency of this writ petition. W.P.Nos.9258 5254 of 2018 have been filed to forbear the respondents from disturbing the seniority positions and for a direction to promote the petitioners as Additional Commissioners in the 2015 panel. Out of the two writ petitioners, the petitioner in W.P.No.5254 of 2018, retired from service during the pendency of the writ petition in the post of Joint Commissioner. 19.Before venturing into the process of considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is important to ascertain as to how the department has understood the effect of the earlier orders passed by this Court and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the same arguments were placed before the Hon'ble High Court in writ appeal No.2280 of 2011 and the Hon'ble High Court found no fault in the fixation and the Rule 2(c) of TNCTS relating to quota in permanent post was also not struck down, in as much as it was correctly followed by Government in the impugned GO. Similarly, the General Rule 35(aa) of Tamil adu State and Subordinate Service Rules referred to, was also time and again raised before the High Court and it was held that this rule relating to date of joining, would apply only to permanent post, which was correctly applied by Government. iv) You have contended that the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court while dismissing the writ appeal (2280 of 2011 dated 31.08.2016) has directed to re-draw the inter-se-seniority from the cadre of AC onwards. On the contrary, the Hn'ble High Court has not mentioned the above contention raised by you. In fact, in the interim order dated 28.07.2016 quoted by you mentioning certain observations of the Hon'ble High Court in Para NO. 5 6 of the judgment dated 28.07.2016, thee is a clear direction that this would be subject to the outcome of the writ appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 01.02.2016 - Temporary list of ACs for the year 2015-16. All the above GOs were issued based on the principles evolved by the Hon'ble High Court and which were confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The above GOs were in operation for a period of two to three years. Now only you have chosen to challenge the GOs issued in Sl.No.1 2 above, besides the GO.Ms.No.116, CT R (E2) Dept, dated 24.08.2012. Since all the WPs and W.A.No.2280 of 2011 relating to the fixation of inter-se-seniority issue were disposed and the orders of the government issued in G.O.Nos. mentioned in Para (iv) above were sustained, further course of action could be taken only if revised orders are passed by the Court on filing of further appeals, if any. 20.It is clear from the above reply given by the department that the department has perfectly understood the fact that the earlier orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has become final and therefore, the Government orders which fixed the inter se seniority have also become final and there is no scope for revising the inter se seniority lists which have already become final. 21. A counter affidavit has been filed by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the lists were identified for rectification and after taking the committee into confidence, an additional counter affidavit admitting to those infirmities was filed by the second respondent before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WA No.2280/2011 in December 2015. For reasons adduced therein, it was proposed to rectify the lists and publish the same only in respect of persons borne on service as on 01.01.2007 and thereafter. 12. A second additional counter affidavit appending a tentative seniority list for all categories of posts from DCTO to ADC for the years from 2007 to 2015 was filed in March 2016 praying for dismissal of the writ appeal to enable the department to publish the same. The department also prayed for hearing of all the connected cases as a batch. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras initially took up all the related cases except the main writ appeal WA No.2280/2011 and disposed them on 28.07.2016 recording a consensus order that the four principles affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would apply in relation to fixation of inter se seniority. The prayers in the respective writs and appeals were directed to be dealt with in terms of the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent to revisit the lists. The process that had already been initiated was thus continued further. (B)Rule aspects: (i) The inter-se seniority list in the entry level cadre post of AC in State Service for the years from 1984 to 2010 has been drawn and published in G.O.Ms.No.116, CT Regn.(E1) Dept., dated 24.08.2012 and this was challenged by the direct recruit ACs (Group I officers) in WP.No.18264/2013 on the grounds that the said list was not in accordance with the aforesaid four principles confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as General Rule 35(aa), as per which the date of appointment in the permanent cadre strength is the criterion for fixation of inter-se seniority between direct recruits and transferees in permanent posts in the cadre of AC. This fact, that General Rule 35(aa) will apply in this instance has been admitted to by the petitioner himself in paragraph 20 of his affidavit. Howsoever, he proceeds to claim that he is senior as per the extant seniority which is not on the basis of General Rule 35 (aa) but on the basis of an erroneously adopted Special rule 2(c) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Commercial Taxes Service pertaining to cyclical apportion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct recruit quota vacancies have been allocated to the transferees or that the list itself is fundamentally flawed by adoption of an incorrect Rule that is not meant for fixation of inter-se seniority. (vi) The G.O.Ms.No.116, CT Regn. (E1) Dept. dated 24.08.2012 has been drawn without considering all the officials born-in service each yea and the 2/3rd quota in permanent cadre strength meant for transferees had been left vacant with the legend 'No Candidate' despite availability of several transferees, which is fundamentally incorrect in a seniority list drawn up between persons already borne-in service i.e., when so many transferees occupying temporary AC posts are awaiting to occupy their transferee quota of permanent posts as and when vacancies arise for claiming seniority. 18.It is respectfully submitted in respect of the averments of the petitioner in paragraphs 16 to 20 of his affidavit, to the effect that none of the government orders relating to his seniority and consequential promotions were so far not challenged or set aside and that the department respondents are attempting to purposefully and willfully distort the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be considered by a statutory Committee on Appeals in term of Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act of 2016. Such a committee would have as its members the Vigilance Commissioner, a member of the TNPSC and the Secretaries to Government of the departments of Finance, P AR, Law and the Administrative department concerned. It may thus be seen that except for the Vigilance Commissioner and the member of TNPSC, the composition of the High-Level Committee is identical to the statutory Committee on Appeals. Therefore, it is perverse on the part of the petitioner to allege that the committee has exceeded its brief. Thus, as aforesaid, the respondents have acted within their jurisdiction and have taken legitimate action at one go to address the issue in a fair, transparent and expeditious manner and to bring the entire seniority into consonance with both rule provisions and court orders consequently, there is no distortion of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras orders by the respondents as claimed by the petitioner. 19.It is respectfully submitted the respondents are not trying to unsettle a settled seniority. It may be seen from the specific word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and he made the following submissions: ● All these writ petitions have been filed not merely based on apprehensions but due to a potential attempt being made by the official respondents to revisit and tamper with a settled seniority list which was confirmed by the Division Bench in its judgment in W.A.No.2280 of 2011, dated 31.08.2016. ● Insofar as the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.9258 of 2018 and W.P.(MD).No.5254 of 2018, they are seeking for implementing 2015 panel for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner which was even approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister when the note file was circulated in January 2016 and which was later not acted upon. ● G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 24.08.2012 has become final and it has not been interfered by the Division Bench and therefore, all the consequential promotions based on that seniority cannot be attempted to be taken away and the petitioners cannot be allowed to be brought down in seniority in the subsequent promotion posts while moving into the State service. ● The apprehension raised by the petitioners has now come true by virtue of the stand taken by the official respondents in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mercial Tax, by letter dated 02.07.2012, considered the rule position and had sent the draft inter se seniority list from the year 1984 to 2010 by taking into account, the four principles laid down by this Court following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Government order has become final and therefore, the consequential fixation of seniority should be in line with this Government order. ● It is true that only the provisional seniority list is going to be published by the respondents. But however, the petitioners were forced to approach this Court since, there was already an earlier round of litigation which ultimately became final after a long drawn legal battle and now if the respondents again revisit the seniority lists, it will be going against the orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That apart even at the earliest point of time, when the issue was raised before this Court in W.P.No.12786 of 1985, the Division Bench of this Court had actually interfered only with a provisional seniority list on the ground that it was going against the rules. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the petitioners approaching the Court even at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted within the department and the preparation of the provisional seniority list which has not even been published, cannot be a subject matter of challenge and for issuing a writ of mandamus, there should be a corresponding statutory duty/legal duty which will arise only after the list is prepared and till then, a mandamus cannot be issued on mere assumptions and apprehensions. ● It is always left open to the Government to change its mind by taking into consideration certain facts and in this case, the counter reveals that the Government found that the existing seniority list has not been correctly drawn in the permanent cadre strength as per the four principles confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment and in accordance with the service rules and therefore, Government thought it fit to publish the provisional seniority list and call for objections. This cannot be prevented by the petitioners and they cannot dictate the Government as to how the seniority list must be published. That apart, the Government only wants to revisit and publish the provisional seniority list from the year 2007 onwards since, what was produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record. 28.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 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. 29.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 trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferries came into the State service, by virtue of the consequential seniority lists, they have been placed above the direct recruits and this anomaly is sought to be rectified by the Government. For this purpose, the Government wants to publish a provisional seniority list and this cannot be prevented by the petitioners. 31.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. 32.This Court also wanted to get a clarity on this issue from the side of the Government and therefore, it has directed the Government to send the provisional seniority l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferries / promotees and the direct recruits were considered differently when it comes to determining their seniority. Therefore, even where the transferries / promotees actually function in the promoted post (AC) at a later point of time, the seniority is reckoned from the date on which the seat becomes vacant. However, when it comes to direct recruits it is the date on which they have entered into service. Therefore, it is possible that the transferries / promotees in spite of getting into the promoted post at a later point of time, will find their place above the direct recruits in the seniority list. This is the result of the earlier proceedings which got concluded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings. The official respondents have perfectly understood this consequence and in spite of it, they did not seek for any clarification before the Division Bench and the judgment of the Division Bench was not taken up on appeal. Therefore, the very basis on which the official respondents are seeking to revise the seniority list, will go against the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.2280 of 2011 and it cannot be permitted by this Court. 36.The offici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the post of JC (ST) to the post of DC (ST). The number of persons thus facing reversion asof April 2018 is eight (8). Of these, two of them were already being considered for inclusion in the temporary panel for promotion to the post of ADC (ST) for the year 2015. But, this panel was not given effect to in view of the admission to infirmities in the existing seniority lists and the consequent decision of the department to revisit them. Challenging this course of action, one of the two officials, Thiru. P. Sakthivel, JC (ST) has filed writ petition in WP (MD)No.5254/2018 praying for promotion as ADC (ST) which is still pending. It could be anticipated that further litigation could ensue on account of the other persons facing reversion. 6.When the lists were file before the Hon ble Supreme Court, it was also submitted that consequential benefits would be given in accordance with law and the same had been given up to the level of JC (ST). Therefore, natural justice would demand that such benefit be not taken away on account of a process of revision considered necessary to rectify infirmities for which the individuals themselves could not be held responsible. Taking away the conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or most JC (ST) as per existing seniority. He was one of the original petitioners in the contempt case no.263/2007 in CA No.1454/1987 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. His prayer in the pending WP is to give him promotion as ADC on the basis of the note orders approved by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister for issue of the temporary panel of ADC for the year 2015. As already stated above, he and the other official, Thiru.S.Vijayakumar would have reached this level if the list had been calculated from 2011 instead of 2007. 11.To avoid or at least reduce further litigation on the issue of seniority,it isproposed that the note orders approved by the then Hon'bleChiefMinister be given effect to by promoting him as well as Thiru. S. Vijayakumar on ad hoc basis as ADC (CT) without reference to their seniority so that the whole issue is not reagitated on grounds of a technicality that the panel approved by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister was not given effect to. However, such promotion need not be given effective from 2015 since the panel itself has lapsed due to efflux of more than a year from its approval and also because the very same seniority is not going to be fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. of posts required Name of the officials for whom proposed Date of retirement ADC (ST) 2 Sakthivel P 31-Aug-2018 Vijayakumar S 30-Mar-2021 JC (ST) 6 Karunanidhi R 30-Apr-2018 Shanmuganathan R 30-Apr-2021 Sitrarasu P 31-Jan-2019 Jothinathan A 31-Jul-2018 Soundararaja Pandian D 30-Apr-2019 K.Sadhasivam 30-Apr-2018 37.From the above proposal, it is clear th at insofar the Sakthivel and Vijayakumar are concerned, their names were included in the panel for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner. This file was even circulated in September 2015 for the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It received the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister in January 2016. As per the business rules provided in Secretariat Office Manual, once the file receives the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the final orders will have to be issued within three days from the date of receipt of orders of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and in no case, it should exceed one week. A copy of the Government Order issued must also be sent to the Chief Minster's office. Unfortunately, in the present case, this has not happened and as a result of the same, Sakthivel had retired as a Joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 28.07.2016, it was held that the promotees will take their seniority from the date when that seat becomes vacant and the direct recruits will take their seniority from the date they have entered into service. This differentiation made by the Division Bench must be kept in mind while drawing the seniority list. (d)Any proposal mooted for creating supernumerary posts in the categories of Additional Commissioner and Joint Commissioner for the petitioners must be strictly in line with the settled seniority without any dilution in their seniority status. (e)The petitioners in W.P.No.9258 of 2018 and W.P.(MD)No.5254 of 2018 are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioners, since, the proposal has been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister in January 2016 and they will be granted promotion accordingly with all consequential benefits. Appropriate orders shall be passed in this regard by the 1st respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (f) The provisional seniority list in various posts under the State service for promotion to the next level, shall be prepared by keeping in mind the judgment of the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
