Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS) – r.5(g) in Annexure-III, item No.(ii) (amended) – Promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar – Supreme Court in M. Rathinaswami and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009) 5 SCC 625 read down the r.5(g) to the extent that it gives preference to the Direct recruits Assistants over the Promotee Assistants who are graduates – In compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Government issued directions to implement the said judgment – Accordingly, District Collectors of Tiruchirappalli, Sivagaujai etc. passed orders redrawing the seniority list by treating the Direct recruit Assistants on par with the Promotee graduate Assistants – Writ petitions were filed by Promotee non-graduate Assistants and Direct recruit Assistants – Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petitions – However, Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and directed the State to draw the seniority list taking Direct recruit Assistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Promotee non-graduate Assistants as one group for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar – On appeal, held: Division Bench failed to notice that the amendment to r.5(g) of TNRSS Rules was upheld by the Supreme Court and has attained finality – The direction of the Division Bench to treat all three categories viz. Promotee non-graduate Assistants and Direct recruit Assistants as one group for the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar amounted to reversing the judgment of Supreme Court – Direction of the High Court was wholly misconceived – By virtue of the judgment of Supreme Court, it is clear that Promotee graduate Assistants are placed on par with Direct recruit Assistants – So far as Promotee non-graduate Assistants are concerned, the amended rule holds the field, which gives preferential treatment to Direct recruit Assistants, over Promotee non-graduate Assistants – Thus, impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Service Law – Promotion.
Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS) – r.5(g) in Annexure-III, item No. (ii) (amended) – Amendment to r.5(g) of TNRSS Rules was upheld by the Supreme Court in M. Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 5 SCC 625 by reading down into the Rule that the promotee graduate Assistants are to be treated on par with Direct recruit Assistants – Appellants and the State contended that the implementation of the said judgment/order with effect from 04.12.1978 would create unprecedented confusion and upset the settled position of Direct recruit Assistants who were promoted from 1995 till 2009 by virtue of the amended Rule conferring preferential treatment on the Direct recruit Assistants – If such a course of action is permitted, it would seriously prejudice the rights of those of the Direct recruit Assistants who have been promoted from 1995 – Held: Directions issued to the effect that promotions of the Direct recruit Assistants effected between 07.02.1995 and 08.04.2009 and their seniority in their respective positions as on date, not to be disturbed – Further, the benefit extended to the graduate promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants is to be given effect to prospectively from the date of judgment of Supreme Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in the case of M. Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009)
5 SCC 625 – After 08.04.2009, the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar from its feeder category, i.e., Direct recruit Assistants and Promotee graduate Assistants, shall be strictly in accordance with the said judgment i.e., treating Promotee graduate Assistants on par with Direct recruit Assistants.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The question involved in these appeals is the implementation of the amendment to Rule 5(g) of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS) and Annexure-III, item(ii) coupled with the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Rathinaswami v. State of T.N. in and by which the Supreme Court upheld the amendment to the rule qua Promotee non-graduate Assistants and read down the rule insofar as the Promotee graduate Assistants. [Para 10] [351-C-D]
2. The State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. No.884 whereby directions were issued to amend Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III, item(ii) of TNRSS Rules retrospectively i.e. with effect from 04.12.1978. Accordingly, G.O. No.133 dated 07.02.1995 was issued providing amendment to the statutory Rules. The validity of the amendment to Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III item (ii) to the TNRSS Rules in G.O. Nos. 884 and 133 dated 12.08.1992 and 07.02.1995 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Rathinaswami. While upholding the amendment to the Rule, the Supreme Court read down into the Rule to the extent that it gives preference to the Direct Recruit Assistants over the Promotee Assistants who are graduates. The Supreme Court held that the amended rule giving preference to the Direct recruit Assistants would be applicable only to the Promotee non-graduate Assistants and Rule would be inapplicable to the Promotee Assistants who are graduates. [Para 11] [351-D-G]
3. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in directing the State to treat the Promotee non-graduate Assistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Direct recruit Assistants as one category and draw revised seniority list for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The Division Bench failed to notice that the amendment to Rule 5(g) of TNRSS Rules by G.O. No.133 dated 07.02.1995 has been upheld by the Supreme Court and has attained finality. The direction of the Division Bench to treat all three categories viz. Promotee non-graduate Assistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Direct recruit Assistants as one group for the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar virtually amounts to reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court. The direction of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment is wholly misconceived. [Para 15] [353-C-E]
4. The classification of the “Promotee graduate Assistants” on par with Direct recruit Assistants is only by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court in Rathinaswami dated 08.04.2009. As rightly pointed out by the appellants and the State, the implementation of the order with effect from 04.12.1978 would create unprecedented confusion and upset the settled position of Direct recruit Assistants who had been promoted from 1995 till 2009 by virtue of the amended Rule conferring preferential treatment on the Direct recruit Assistants. If such a course of action is permitted, it would seriously prejudice the rights of those of the Direct recruit Assistants who have been promoted from 1995. [Para 17] [354-D-G]
5. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed with the following observations and directions:-
(i) Promotions of the Direct recruit Assistants effected between 07.02.1995 and 08.04.2009 and their seniority in their respective positions as on date, shall not be disturbed;
(ii) The benefit extended to the graduate promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants is to be given effect to prospectively from the date of judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in the case of M. Rathinaswami v. State of T.N. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 625;
(iii) After 08.04.2009, the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar from its feeder category, i.e., Direct recruit Assistants and Promotee graduate Assistants, shall be strictly in accordance with the judgment of this Court referred above, i.e., treating Promotee graduate Assistants on par with Direct recruit Assistants. Such promotion shall be given effect to, without reference to any interim order(s) passed by the High Court;
(iv) If any panels are prepared, and promotions are given, after 08.04.2009 for promoting the Assistants to the post of Deputy Tahsildars in Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service contrary to the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009, such panels and promotions have to be revised so as to bring in conformity with the judgment of this Court referred above;
(v) By virtue of the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009, referred above, Promotee graduate Assistants are placed on par with Direct recruit Assistants. So far as Promotee non-graduate Assistants are concerned, the amended rule holds the field, which gives preferential treatment to Direct recruit Assistants, over Promotee non-graduate Assistants;
(vi) Promotee non-graduate Assistants, who are impleaded as party respondents in these appeals, are not entitled to any directions in their favour, as much as, all these appeals are preferred by Direct recruit Assistants;
(vii) While implementing the above directions, if the seniority and promotion, of the persons who are already retired or dead, is affected in any manner, payments made on account of such seniority and promotion earlier granted to them during the interregnum period, i.e., from 08.04.2009 till this date shall not be recovered.
(viii) So far as Promotee non-graduate Assistants are concerned, it is open for them to pursue with the Government for appropriate amendment to the Rules, in which event it is open to Government to consider such request on its own merits. [Para 19] [355-A-G; 356-A-B]
M. Rathinaswami and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009) 5 SCC 625 - relied on.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others (1997) 3 SCC 261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.