9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 983 and joined the post on 10.8.1983. The seniority list in the post of Assistant made in the year 1988 was communicated to him. The petitioner and his colleague Mr. Amurudeen made representations, dated 20.8.1988 for revision of seniority for placing them over and above their immediate juniors. A further representation was also made on 15.3.1989 in this regard. In the said representation, the petitioner brought to the notice of respondents, a decision of the Supreme Court in Ganga Ram vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 2179. 2. The petitioner has further submitted that his colleague Mr. Amurudeen in his representation had pointed out that in Secretariat service, the seniority of certain Assistant Section Officers who were overlooked due to non-passing of certain departmental tests were restored their seniority in appropriate places, though they had passed the departmental test belatedly. The representation of the said Mr. Amurdeen made in the month of May' 1993, was forwarded by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, on 24.5.1993 to the Chief Engineer General, P.W.D. for restoration of seniority. He also made another representation, dated 28.11.1984 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the panel for the year 1974 was effected on 6.9.1979. Similarly panel prepared for the year 1976 was given effect upto 19.3.1981. According to the petitioner, as per the service rules, panel prepared for a particular year can be operated only for one year and giving effect to the said panel for subsequent years is a clear violation of Government order No.3467, Public (Ser.M) Department dated 31.10.1975. It is the grievance of the petitioner that panels for each year were not prepared due to administrative lapses and consequently some of the juniors who became qualified earlier than the petitioner were included in the panels drawn upto 1979 and promoted as Assistants from the said panels. Had the respondents prepared panels for each year, the petitioner would have been included in the respective panel and consequently gained promotion. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he was qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant in November, 1980 by passing all the tests, he was promoted only in the year 1983. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that the respondents have prepared a panel for the post of Superintendent for the year 1998-1999. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent on the ground that the order of the Tribunal dated 7.5.2002 in O.A.No. 7331 of 2001 filed by Mr. Amurudeen would be applicable only to that individual and it cannot be extended to the case of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra.. 7. Per contra, the respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that the petitioner was recruited through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the competitive examination held in the year 1973 for Group-IV Service for the post of Junior Assistant, which falls under the Taminadu Ministerial Service. He joined government Service as Junior Assistant on 2.11.1973. The government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.586, Public Works Department dated 27.3.1972 introducing one unit system for Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service as against the prevailing many units system, at the level of the Chief Engineers and Superintending Engineers with effect from 1.4.1969 as per G.O.Ms.No. 1338 Public Works Department dated 17.6.1971 for the purpose of recruitment/promotion/appointment. Therefore to fall in line with the government orders, recruitment particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n prevailing unit i.e. Office of the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Madras Circle, Chennai and therefore his name was included in the list of Assistants who were regularised as per G.O.(4d) 3, Public Works Department dated 21.7.81. 10. The respondents have further submitted that, 15th March of every year is the crucial date, for preparation of panel as per Rule 13(A) of the Special Rules for the Tamil nadu Ministerial Service. The name of the petitioner could be considered for promotion as Assistant by the Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department, Chennai, the Unit officer in the panel for year 1982-83 and on promotion, the petitioner joined duty as Assistant on 10.8.1983. The respondents have further submitted that taking into consideration of date of passing of the Special Qualifying Tests, the Petitioner was given promotion as Assistant and placed in the seniority list of Assistants. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed O.A.No. 1083 of 2004 seeking revision of seniority for the post of Assistant, which is renumbered as present writ petition. 11. According to the respondents, the facts of the present case is entirely different from the case in O.A.No.5818 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only under the one unit system in Public Works Department after passing the prescribed Tests. As regards the case of Mr. Amurudeen, respondents have submitted that he had passed the prescribed tests during 1979 and became qualified to be promoted as Assistant during 1979 itself, whereas the petitioner has passed the prescribed test only in November, 1980 and as such, he cannot compare himself with Mr. P.S. Amurudeen. 16. It is further submitted that when the Tribunal allowed the Original Application in O.A.No. 17331 of 2001 by its order dated 7.5.2002, it gave a direction to include the case of Mr. Amurudeen in between two existing Superintendents, namely, Mr. S. Nizamudin and Mr.S. Sebastian. Accordingly, the said individual was promoted as Superintendent to comply with the orders of the Tribunal, subject to the revision of seniority, which is yet to be decided by the Government. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner cannot be promoted as Assistant along with Mr. Amurudeen for the reason, that the said individual got himself qualified for the post of Assistant by passing the District Office Manual Test during May 1974 and the test for Public Works Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinate Services Rules, a panel prepared for a particular year is valid only for one year and that those who have been qualified for promotion prior to the crucial date have to be considered for inclusion in the next year, the petitioner who had successfully completed the departmental test for promotion to the post of Assistant in the year 1980, ought to have been considered for promotion as Assistant and consequently is entitled to further promotion as Superintendent, on par with that of Mr. Amurudeen. 20. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rank of petitioner in TNPSC list is 272 and when he had passed the departmental test in November, 1980 i.e., before the crucial date for preparation of panel for each year i.e. 15th March of every year, the petitioner ought to have been promoted as Assistant in the year 1981 itself on par with that of his junior and consequently entitled for promotion as done in the case of Mr. Amurudeen, as per the orders of the Tribunal. 21. He further added that when a decision of the Court/Tribunal is rendered with regard to the applicability of statutory provisions, to a class of persons i.e. the effect of the pane ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stants cannot be disturbed by belated acquisition of qualifications. As the petitioner had passed the departmental test in November, 1980 and in view of the procedure followed by the department in the matter of promotion i.e., from the panels drawn for the years 1972 to 1979, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistants, when the panel was drawn in the year 1982-83. He further submitted that the claim of the petitioner to promote him retrospectively would tantamount to revision of ranking in the seniority of Assistants who were promoted earlier from among the TNPSC allottees for the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. 26. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the judgement rendered by the Tribunal in O.A.No .7331 of 2001 would be applicable only in the case of the applicant therein before the Tribunal and it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 27. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this court deems it fit to examine as to whether the judgement of the Tribunal rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise. The judgement in rem operates as a bar or estoppel only to the res or matter within the jurisdiction of the court and does not prevent a subsequent action for personal relief, which could not be obtained in the first action. Thus with respect to the res or status , a judgement in rem has to be conclusive and binding upon all the world that is, on all the persons, who may have or claim any right or interest in the subject matter of litigation, whether or not, they were parties to or participants in the action, atleast to the extent, that it adjudicates or establishes a status, title or res, constituting the subject matter of the action, a judgement in rem will operate as a estoppel, in a subsequent action in respect of the points or questions adjudicated. 30. In the above legal backdrop, it is necessary to examine whether the judgement rendered in O.A.No.7331 of 2001 dated 7.5.2002 by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, is confined only the parties thereto or it binds all persons having interests in the res , the subject matter of controversy in the Original Application. 31. In the above Original Application, the applicant Mr. Amurudeen became qualif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgements held as follows: 12. On the face of it, the proposition is wrong. As per Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, if a panel is prepared, it shall be in force for one year only and shall lapses at the end of the year. There is a reference to the Memo issued in No.55935/112/74-1, dated 23.5.74. As per this memo, it is stated that the panel should be drawn up as on first April of every year containing the names of those who pass the tests in the succeeding year shall have their seniority in that year only. It is further stated that while considering promotion, earlier list should be first exhausted before going to the list of next year. Though this memo has not been produced, as we have seen already that as per Rule 4(a), the panel has to lapse, if it was not implemented. But, here the reason given is after the implementation of one unit system in Public Works Department in 1972, the panels were prepared for the post of Assistant for the year 1973 to 1979 and the first panel of 1973 was effected on 24.7.1979. The panel for 1974 was effected from 6.7.1979 and the panel for 1975 was effected on 25.9.1979 and the panel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crucial date prescribed as per the rules, the Tribunal had directed the respondents therein, to include the name of the said Mr. Amurudeen, in the panel for the year 1988 and 1989 for promotion to the post of Superintendent, as published by Principal Chief Engineer on 21.7.1988, by directing inclusion of his name at Sl.No.128 (a) above the name of Mr. Nizamuddin and below Mr.S.A.Sebastian. It is an admitted position that the judgement rendered in O.A.No.7331 of 2001 has been implicitly complied with by the government and that the applicant therein was also promoted as Superintendent, subject to the revision of seniority. The findings with regard to the procedure adopted by the respondents therein, in promoting Assistants form the panels drawn for previous years, against the statutory provisions, viz., Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and Rule 30(B) of the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial service Rules, has not been challenged by way of appeal and that the said decision has become final. The facts and objections raised byt he respondents in the Original Application No. 7331 of 2001 and in the present writ petition are similar. It is also ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. 36. The above position of law has been restated in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., v. Darius Shapur Chennai reported in 2005 (7) SCC 627, and at paragraph 24 of the judgement, the Supreme Court held as follows: When an order is passed by a statutory authority, the same must be supported either on the reasons stated therein or on the grounds available therefor in the record. A statutory authority cannot be permitted to support its order relying on or on the basis of the statements made in the affidavit dehors the order or for that matter dehors the records. 37. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court and having regard to the decision taken by the Government, in implementing the orders of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.7331 of 2001 dated 17.5.2002, it is not open to the respondents to advance their arguments once again, over the same issue of seniority in the post of Assistants. Excepting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
