Service Law – Promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff – Claim for – Various persons working as Record Clerks and Office Assistants in Erode District filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff without insisting on the educational qualification of a pass in SSLC – Their claim was based on the High Court order dated 22.07.2009 in batch of cases and the fact that present vacancies arose before the enactment of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 – The High Court rejected the claim on the ground that the previous judgment dated 22.07.2009 in the batch of cases is no longer of any relevance after coming into force of 2016 Act and that date on which vacancies arose cannot determine the Rule applicable for recruitment by promotion – On appeal, held: After the implementation of the recommendations of (i)The Shetty Commission and (ii) The Tamil Nadu v Pay Commission, no one was entitled to claim a right to promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff, without the prescribed essential qualification – The petitioners cannot take refuge under the failure of the Government to issue necessary amendment to Statutory Rules and the previous judgment of the High Court dated 22.07.2009 – Pending the issue of amendment to Statutory Rules, (i) The nomenclature of the post has changed and (ii) a higher scale of pay also given to the post – One cannot reap the benefit and ignore the requirement – The previous judgment of the High Court dated 22.07.2009 did not take into considerations any of these developments and hence cannot be cited as precedence by petitioners – Further, 2016 Act actually replaces the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services – But Act does not override the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service – The High Court and petitioners overlooked s.68 of the A 2016 Act – However, the ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court is unassailable – No ground to interfere with the order of the High Court.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: 1. It is clear that after the implementation of the recommendations of (i) the Shetty Commission and (ii) the Tamil Nadu V Pay Commission, no one was entitled to claim a right to promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff, without the qualifications prescribed. [Para 13][594-F-G]
2. The petitioners cannot take refuge under (i) the failure C of the Government to issue a necessary amendment to Statutory Rules and (ii) the previous judgment of the High Court dated 22-07-2009 passed in a batch of cases. Pending the issue of amendment to statutory rules, (i) the nomenclature of the post has changed and (ii) a higher scale of pay also given to the post. D One cannot reap the benefit and ignore the requirement. The previous judgment of the High Court did not take note of any of the above developments and hence the same cannot be cited as a precedence by the petitioners. [Para 14][594-G-H; 595-A]
3. The argument revolving around the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and the fact that vacancies arose in the year 2015, prior to the enactment, is of no relevance. This Act was enacted to consolidate the law relating to recruitment and the terms and conditions of service of persons appointed to the State and Subordinate services in the State of Tamil Nadu, in terms of the mandate contained in Article 309. Until the advent of this Act, the State of Tamil Nadu, like many other States, was only issuing Rules in exercise of the power conferred by the Proviso to Article 309, though such Rules were meant only to be a stop gap arrangement until an Act of the legislature was made. This 2016 Act actually replaces the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. But the Act does not override the Special Rules. Section 68 of Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 2016 makes it clear that the Special Rules will prevail over the provisions of the Act, if any provision of the act is inconsistent therewith. [Para 18][596-B-D]
4. But the petitioners as well as the High Court overlooked the above provision. In view of section 68, the High court may not be right in saying in the impugned order (paragraph 11) that the Special Rules would no longer govern the service of the petitioners. The reliance placed by the High Court on Section 20(2) of the 2016 Act may not also be fully correct, since the same does not, by itself prescribe any qualification. Section 20 merely explains what a reference in the Special Rules to the expression ‘minimum general educational qualification’ would connote. This provision namely Section 20, is applicable only to cases where the Special Rules prescribe the possession of the minimum general educational qualification as a prerequisite for appointment to any class or category of service. Section 20 of the Act read with Schedule-III merely defines the expression “minimum general educational qualification” as found in the Special Rules. [Para 19][596-F-H]
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.