9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies thereto. It has been held that no court, tribunal or party would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. Such an order would mean that it has declared the law and in that light, the case was considered not fit for grant of leave - It is thus clear that though it cannot be said that the second judgment of the Madras High Court has merged into the order of this Court dated 22nd January 2016, still the declaration of law as made in the said order, would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in the country and in any case, between the parties. The Respondents are directed to revise and publish the seniority list of the selectees, who were selected in the selection process conducted in pursuance of the notification issued by TNPSC dated 10th September 1999, strictly on the basis of the merit determined by it in the selection process and not on the basis of the roster point. The same shall be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order. SLP disposed off. - Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 638 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. ... of 2021 (Diary No. 16048 of 2020) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2000. 3. After a period of 4 years from the date of joining of the selectees, the seniority list came to be notified on 29th April 2004. One R. Balakrishnan made a representation contending therein that though he was a more meritorious candidate belonging to the Backward Class category, he was allotted to the General Turn (open category) and kept at Serial No. 172 of the roster point. It was however his contention that the other persons belonging to the Backward Classes, who were less meritorious, were placed higher in the list and given seniority over and above him since they were placed against reserved vacancies. The representation of R. Balakrishnan was rejected by TNPSC vide order dated 20th December 2004, on the ground that the roster point itself determined the seniority, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 625. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20th December 2004, R. Balakrishnan and few others filed various writ petitions before the Madras High Court. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18th October 2012, passed by the Single Judge of the Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) is/are disposed of. 6. After dismissal of the said SLPs, the official Respondents had filed review petitions before the Division Bench of the High Court. So also, certain contempt petitions were filed by the selectees, who were aggrieved by non-revision of the seniority list. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court vide judgment and order dated 26th March 2021 dismissed the review petitions, so also, the contempt petitions. The same is challenged before this Court by the selectees, who were aggrieved by non-revision of the seniority list, by filing SLP(C) Nos. 12114-12117 of 2021. 7. The contempt petitions have been listed before this Court on various dates. Vide order dated 11th February 2021, this Court passed the following order: In the meanwhile, the judgment dated 22.01.2016 shall be implemented. In case the judgment is not implemented by that date, the following alleged contemnors/Respondents shall be present in this Court on the next date of hearing: C.P. (C) No. 638 of 2017 in C.A. No. 4954 of 2016 1) M. Vijayakumar 2) S. Thinakaran Dy. No. 16048 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court had granted relief to the individual Petitioners. Understanding the same, the Respondent authorities had issued a fresh seniority list, thereby granting the requisite seniority to the individual Petitioners. (ii) Perusal of the second judgment of the Madras High Court dated 15th November 2019, would further fortify that the relief granted in earlier round was restricted to individual Petitioners. Relying on certain observations in the said judgment, it is submitted that the Division Bench has clearly held that the delay, laches, acquiescence and accrued right would be the relevant factors and as such, the individuals who were not Petitioners in the first round, are not entitled to get the seniority as per the first judgment of the Madras High Court. (iii) That the rights of the parties have been crystallized for more than almost two decades and upsetting those at this stage, would cause great heart-burn amongst the employees in the cadre. (iv) That some of the employees have accepted the seniority list and now the entire exercise cannot be redone to thrust the revised seniority on such employees. (v) That in any case, the judgment of the Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant to refer to the following observations passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the first judgment: 37. ..... (ii) The cases on hand are not individualistic in nature, depending upon individual dates, facts and sequence of events. The cases on hand arise out of a most fundamental question as to the principle of law to be applied in the matter of fixation of seniority. The grievance of the writ Petitioners was not individualistic, depending for their adjudication, upon distinct facts. These cases question the very foundation on which seniority was sought to be determined on principle. To such cases, the enabling provision Under Rule 35(f) entitling the department to summarily reject the claim of the individuals, cannot be invoked. 17. It can thus be seen that the High Court has clearly observed that the case before the High Court was not individualistic in nature, depending upon individual dates, facts and sequence of events. It has further observed that it arose out of the most fundamental question as to the principle of law to be applied in the matter of fixation of seniority. 18. Having observed this, in the operative part, the Division Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the list drawn based on roster point can have no application for the purpose of seniority list. As the said fundamental principle was applied by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment, we do not find any merit in these special leave petitions. The special leave petitions are dismissed. The learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, raised an issue that with reference to a contra view taken by another judgment of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, at the instance of one of the employees an SLP is pending in this Court. Since the issue is now covered by the decision of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra), the pendency of the said SLP will be of no consequence as the said SLP should also be covered by the said judgment of this Court, namely, Bimlesh Tanwar (supra). [emphasis supplied] 21. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359: 27. A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticle 141 of the Constitution of India, if there is a law declared by this Court which obviously would be binding on all the courts and the tribunals in India and certainly, the parties thereto. It has been held that no court, tribunal or party would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. Such an order would mean that it has declared the law and in that light, the case was considered not fit for grant of leave. 23. This Court, while dismissing the SLPs against the first judgment, has clearly held that after the emergence of the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra), the fundamental principle governing the determination of seniority was that, it should be based on merit list of selection and that the list made on the basis of roster point, would not be permissible in law. It could thus be seen that while dismissing the SLPs, this Court has reiterated the legal position as laid down in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar (supra) to the effect that while determining seniority, what is relevant is the inter se merit in the selection list and not the roster point. 24. It is pertinent to note that though, the then learned Attorney General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
