Skip to content


A. Rajathi Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Secretariat and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition(MD) Nos. 7096, 7097, 7099, 7100 & 8184 of 2010 & M.P(MD)Nos. 1 to 1 of 2010
Judge
AppellantA. Rajathi
RespondentThe Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Secretariat and Others
Excerpt:
.....submitted that all the petitioners are now serving as deputy block development officers in madurai district and all of them came to madurai district on district transfer as indicated below:- nameyear of recruitment as junior assistant and allotted districttransfer to madurai district as approved probationer in the cadre of junior assistant and date of joiningdate of completion of probation in the original district of joininga.rajathi1983, tiruchirapalli01.09.199501.02.1991k.sankareswari1994, tirunelveli10.12.199824.08.1996thangapandi1995, villupuram02.02.199828.06.1997n.sundari1993, ramanathapuram04.04.200004.08.1995 tmt.a.rajalakshmi alone came to madurai district as a probationer on 05.07.1996 and completed the period of probation in madurai district on 31.05.1997. 4. it is.....
Judgment:

(Prayer : Writ petition is filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Praying this Court to a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records of the third respondent relating to R.C.No.134/2010/RD-2 dated 19.05.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to refix the seniority of petitioner in the list of Assistants of the year 1998 as per the orders issued by the second respondent in his R.C.No.88813/2008/C-1 dated 25.04.2009 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.)

Common Order:

1. Since the issue raised in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they have been taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. These writ petitions have been filed challenging impugned orders passed by the District Collector, Madurai in his R.C.No.134/2010/RD-2 dated 19.05.2010 fixing seniority of these petitioners right from the cadre of Junior Assistant in his proceedings No.R.C.No.134/2010/RD-2 dated 19.05.2010 and for consequential direction to the District Collector, Madurai to refix the seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant and so on in accordance with law, within a specified time frame.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the petitioners are now serving as Deputy Block Development Officers in Madurai District and all of them came to Madurai district on District Transfer as indicated below:-

NameYear of Recruitment as Junior Assistant and Allotted districtTransfer to Madurai District as approved probationer in the cadre of Junior Assistant and date of JoiningDate of completion of Probation in the original district of joining
A.Rajathi1983, Tiruchirapalli01.09.199501.02.1991
K.Sankareswari1994, Tirunelveli10.12.199824.08.1996
Thangapandi1995, Villupuram02.02.199828.06.1997
N.Sundari1993, Ramanathapuram04.04.200004.08.1995
Tmt.A.Rajalakshmi alone came to Madurai District as a Probationer on 05.07.1996 and completed the period of probation in Madurai District on 31.05.1997.

4. It is settled principle that the approved probationers who came to Madurai District on one way transfer, they must be placed below the approved probationers of Madurai District who already completed the probation on the day in which the District Transfer candidate joins duty. Similarly the probationers should be placed below the probationers of Madurai District on the date of their joining. This basic principle is not followed in respect of the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistant in the seniority list published by the District Collector, Madurai in his proceedings R.C.No.134/2010/RD-2 dated 19.05.2010 as shown below:-

5. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7096 of 2010, namely, Tmt.A.Rajathi joined duty in Madurai District as an approved probationer on 01.09.1995 though she completed the probation in her original district on 01.02.1991. In the impugned proceedings under Serial No.77, it is clearly stated and admitted that she joined in Madurai District as an approved probationer on 01.09.1995 which is not in dispute. But in the impugned seniority list, the persons Thiru.K.Kandasamy who completed the probation on 22.12.2000 (S.No.74), Thiru.K.Pandian who completed the probation on 31.05.2001 (S.No.73), Thiru.S.Muthusamy who completed the probation on 31.05.2000 (S.No.67), Thiru.N.Soundararajan who completed the probation on 22.12.2000 (S.No.64) and others are placed above the petitioner Tmt.A.Rajathi quite against the settled principles. In the proceedings No.R.C.88813/2008/C1 dated 25.04.2009, the Commissioner of Rural Development, Chennai has clearly discussed the seniority of this petitioner.

6. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7097 of 2010/ Tmt.K.Sankareswari joined duty in Madurai District as an approved probationer on 10.12.1998 though she completed the probation in her original district on 24.08.1996. In the impugned proceedings under Serial No.116, it is clearly stated and admitted that she joined in Madurai District as an approved probationer on 10.12.1998 which is not in dispute. But in the impugned seniority list, the persons Thiru.P.Mohanram who completed the probation on 31.12.2001 (S.No.111), Tmt.Bharathi Nallammal who completed the probation on 31.05.2002 (S.No.107), Tmt.V.Krishnaveni who completed the probation on 31.05.2002 (S.No.106), Tmt.M.Vasuki who completed the probation on 31.12.2002 (S.No.105), Thiru.M.Athimohan who completed the probation on 31.05.2003 (S.No.104) and others are placed above the petitioner Tmt.K.Sankareswari quite against the settled principles. In the proceedings No.R.C.88813/2008/C1 dated 25.04.2009, the Commissioner of Rural Development, Chennai has clearly discussed the seniority of this petitioner.

7. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7099 of 2010 /Thangapandi joined duty in Madurai District as an approved probationer on 02.02.1998 though he completed the probation in his original district on 28.06.1997. In the impugned proceedings under Serial No.99, it is clearly stated and admitted that he joined in Madurai District as an approved probationer on 02.02.1998 which is not in dispute. But in the impugned seniority list, the persons Thiru.R.Anbarasu who completed the probation on 31.05.2000 (S.No.89), Thiru.Ulaganathan who completed the probation on 31.05.2000 (S.No.87), Thiru.K.Sundarasamy who completed the probation on 22.12.2000, (S.No.74) Thiru.K.Pandian who completed the probation on 31.05.2001 (S.No.73) and others are placed above the petitioner Thiru.Thangapandi quite against the settled principles.

8. The Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8184 of 2010/N.Sundari joined duty in Madurai District as an approved probationer on 04.04.2000 though she completed the probation in her original district on 04.08.1995. In the impugned proceedings under Serial No.125, it is clearly stated and admitted that she joined in Madurai District as an approved probationer on 04.04.2000 which is not in dispute. But in the impugned seniority list, the persons Thiru.K.Pandian who completed the probation on 31.05.2001 (S.No.73), Thiru.P.Mohanram who completed the probation on 31.12.2001 (S.No.111), Tmt.M.Vasuki who completed the probation on 31.12.2002 (S.No.105), Thiru.M.Athilingam who completed the probation on 31.05.2003 (S.No.104) and others are placed above the petitioner Tmt.N.Sundari quite against the settled principles.

9. The District Collector filed a counter in all these cases by stating that about the promotions given in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officers and so on.

10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would also agree that the seniority fixed in the cadre of the Junior Assistants in respect of the transferred candidates from other district is not correct.

11. The issue involved in these case is that how the seniority has to be fixed in the cadre of Junior Assistants came from other District as approved probationer. As per the instructions of the Government the employees who came on one way transfer completing the period of probation at their request, they should be placed below the persons who competed the probation on their date of joining in Madurai District.

12. Heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

14. Admittedly, the respondents themselves have admitted that the seniority fixed in the cadre of Junior Assistant in respect of transferred candidates from other Districts is not correct, as per Rule 38 of the Tamil State and Subordinate Service Rules. The Rule 38 of the said Rules reads as follows:-

Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in Special rules, Government shall have power to annul, modify or revise the list of approved candidates for appointments or promotion to any category or class or service prepared by the head of department or any other lower category in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Special Rules for any service

In respect of the same, G.O.Ms.No.72, P and AR Department, dated 28.01.1982 states that applications submitted even after three years for rectifying orders, resulting from mistake of facts, could be entertained.

15. But in this case, when the District Collector had prepared the tentative seniority list and objections were called for from the employees, it is reported in the counter affidavit that 86 objections were received and a reply to the aggrieved persons, including petitioner, was also sent.

16. A fair reading of the impugned order would show that it is no where stated that the present impugned seniority list was published after considering the objections made by the individual. When the third respondent himself has admitted that 86 objections were received from aggrieved persons, they should have considered the objections and also after giving reasonable opportunity to them, the tentative impugned seniority list should have been published.

17. From the non-consideration of the objections in the impugned order dated 19.05.2010, the very purpose and sprit of publishing the provisional lists and final lists is defeated. If the objections were fairly considered by the respondents, definitely, the petitioners would have been put in the proper place of seniority.

18. It is made clear that the District Administration did not prepare year wise Assistant List as per the crucial date and follow the Rules prescribed under the Service Rules. This is the root cause for the subsequent confusions and contradictions. As per Service Rules, for preparation of list of Assistants every year, the crucial date is i.e., 15th March of every year. What is to be done by the authorities concerned under Service Rules is preparation of list of qualified Assistants, every year, as per the crucial date, but without doing this lawful exercise, the third respondent has issued the impugned seniority list, which is totally against the Service Rules and also against the principles of natural justice.

19. Due to the above, there was clear lack of mind on the part of the respondents and without following the Service Rules, they had simply issued the present impugned order, which has given rise to the suffering, not only the petitioners in these writ petitions but also other qualified candidates. Therefore, in the interest of justice and also as per the above Service Rules, the respondents, particularly, the third respondent/District Collector should keep in mind and consider the Rules in a proper manner and put the eligible candidates in a proper place. Hence, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned seniority list issued by the third respondent/District Collector, Madurai in his proceeding R.C.No.134/2010/RD-2 dated 19.05.2010 and accordingly, the same is quashed.

20. Accordingly, I am passing the following orders:-

(a) these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders in R.C.No.134.2010/RD-2 dated 19.05.2010 are quashed.

(b) the third respondent/District Collector, Madurai is directed to issue the revised seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistant and consequential seniority in the cadre in which, now they are serving, as per the approved procedure and as per the instructions contained in Government letter No.15062/RD-4/2009-2 dated 17.12.2009, after proper consideration of the individual objections.

(b) the third respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //