Skip to content


D. Jayaraman and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Industries Department and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1985)2MLJ395
AppellantD. Jayaraman and ors.
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Industries Department and ors.
Excerpt:
- - rule 4 of the said ad hoc rules provided recruitment being made to the post of the textile control officer as well as the superintendent being filled up by transfer from the following categories: ) department of industries, labour and housing dated 20.4.1966, ad hoc rules were framed for recruitment to the post of textile control officers and that also provided for transfer from tahsildar as well as superintendent in the director of handlooms and textiles department. thus, the petitioners in the writ petitions as well as respondents 3 to 16 in the writ petitions have all been promoted. thus, the appointment of the petitioners in the writ petitions as well as subsequent promotion of respondents 3 to 16 are all effective......rule 4 of the said ad hoc rules provided recruitment being made to the post of the textile control officer as well as the superintendent being filled up by transfer from the following categories:(i) by transfer from the post of tahsildars; or(ii) by recruitment by transfer from the categories of selection grade superintendents or superintendents. working in the office of the director of handlooms who have put in not less than 2 years of service as such.though the personnel working in the director of handlooms and textiles, madras, came from two sources, the personnel' coming from the co-operative department were not shown as a category for being recruited by transfer to the post of either textile control officer of the senior superintendent. under g.o.ms. no. 1961 (ind.).....
Judgment:

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. Since all these writ appeals raise the same issue, they are dealt with together. These writ appeals arise out of the order of Mohan, J., in two writ petitions, W.P.Nos. 197 and 417 of 1975. The appellants are aggrieved against the common order of the learned single Judge. The circumstances under which the writ petitions came to be filed before this Court may briefly be noted. There was recruitment of Lower Division Clerks in the Office of the Director of Handloom and Textiles, Madras, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the petitioners in the said writ petitions were persons who were selected for appointment as Lower Division Clerks through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The posts of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk as also the Superintendent in the Director of Handlooms and Textiles were governed by the rules applicable to the Madras Ministerial Services. The petitioners who were recruited as Lower Division Clerks were later promoted as Upper Division Clerks or Assistants. After completion of the probation, they were regularly promoted as Superintendents. They were also declared to have satisfactorily completed their probation later. In the meanwhile, a separate wing in the Co-operative Department to look after the Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society was formed. These officers occupied the posts of Junior Inspector, Senior Inspector or Co-operative Sub-Registrar, as the case may be, in the Co-operative Department. They were governed by the rules, applicable to the Madras Co-operative Subordinate Service. In the year 1960, the personnel looking after the handloom work in the Co-operative Department were brought under the administrative control of the Director of Handlooms and Textiles. They further continued to be designated as Junior Inspector, Senior Inspector and Co-operative Sub-Registrar and they also continued to be governed by the rules applicable to Madras Co-operative Subordinate Services and their promotions and other matters affecting their service were made by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Thus, there were two sets of personnel, one governed by the Madras Co-operative Subordinate Service Rules and the, other the Madras Ministerial Service Rules. However, the Government in ...G.O.Ms. No. 2156 (Ind.) Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation dated 15.4. 1961 framed ad hoc rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution for all the personnel working in the Office of the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras. By reason of those rules, the appointment to the post of Superintendents are to be made by recruitment by transfer from among the Senior Inspectors or from promotion among the Upper Division Clerks working in the Office of the Director of Handlooms. In the Department of Handlooms and Textiles, the higher post to that of the Superintendent was Textile, Control Officer in the scale of Rs. 525-25-600-30-750. In G.O.Ms. No. 2326 (Ind.) Department of Industries Labour and Co-operation, dated 29.4.1965, ad hoc rules under Article 309 of the Constitution were made for the post of Senior Superintendents. Rule 4 of the said ad hoc rules provided recruitment being made to the post of the Textile Control Officer as well as the Superintendent being filled up by transfer from the following categories:

(i) By transfer from the post of Tahsildars; or

(ii) by recruitment by transfer from the categories of Selection Grade Superintendents or Superintendents. Working in the Office of the Director of Handlooms who have put in not less than 2 years of service as such.

Though the personnel working in the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras, came from two sources, the personnel' coming from the Co-operative Department were not shown as a category for being recruited by transfer to the post of either Textile Control Officer of the Senior Superintendent. Under G.O.Ms. No. 1961 (Ind.) Department of Industries, Labour and Housing dated 20.4.1966, ad hoc rules were framed for recruitment to the post of Textile Control Officers and that also provided for transfer from Tahsildar as well as Superintendent in the Director of Handlooms and Textiles Department. Though the said ad hoc rules did not provide for the personnel who come from the Co-operative Department and who are working as either Inspectors or Co-operative Sub-Registrars in the Office of the Director of Handlooms, respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as Textile Control Officers taking into account the representations made by the personnel coming from the Handloom Department and also on the basis of the recommendations made by the Director of Handlooms. The said appointment of respondents 3 to 16 as Textile Control Officers were challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos. 197 and 417 of 1975. Mohan, J., allowed those writ petitions holding that relevant ad hoc rules which were in operation at the relevant time did not provide for the' personnel coming from the Co-operative Department being promoted and that at the relevant time only persons in the category of Tahsildar and Superintendent in the Director of Handlooms and Textiles alone would be considered for promotion ' to the post of Textile Control Officers and so long as that ad hoc rules are not amended, it is not open to the State Government or the Director of Handlooms to effect recruitment in violation of the said ad hoc rules. In that view, the learned single Judge quashed the appointments and also directed the authorities to consider the question of recruitment to the post of Textile Control Officers strictly in accordance with the ad hoc rules then in force.

2. It appears that in pursuance of the orders passed by Mohan, J., the petitioners in the writ petitions were actually promoted as Textile Control Officers. Respondents 3 to 16 aggrieved against the order of Mohan, J., had filed the writ appeals questioning the order of Mohan, J. After the filing of the appeals in the place of ad hoc rules, special rules have been framed for the personnel working in the Tamil Nadu Handloom and Textile Service. Those rules are called the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Handloom and Textiles Service made under G.O.Ms. No. 1140, (Industries), dated 9th August, 1979. The said rules made in 1979 have; been given retrospective effect from 30th April, 1971. As per the said Special Rules, the Textile Control Officers have to be appointed by recruitment by transfer from among the Tahsildars in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service and Grade Superintendent/Superintendents working in the Department of Handlooms and Textiles. Thus, all the Superintendents working in the Handlooms and' Textiles Department are now entitled; to be appointed as Textile Control Officers; unlike the earlier ad hoc rules which provided for the appointment of Textile Control Officers only from the category of Tahsildars and Superintendents who are governed by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. The saving clause contained in Rule 10 says that nothing contained in those rules shall adversely affect any person holding the posts on the date of issue of the rules. On coming into force of the said Special Rules, respondents 3 to 16 have, in fact, been promoted, as Textile Control Officers. Thus, the petitioners in the writ petitions as well as respondents 3 to 16 in the writ petitions have all been promoted. The promotion of petitioners in the writ petitions in pursuance of the orders passed by Mohan, j., before the issuance of the Special Rules is covered by the saving clause contained in Rule 10 of the Special Rules. The appointment of respondents 3 to 16 made in pursuance of the Special Rules will be taken to have effect from 30th April,, 1971 in view of the retrospective effect given to the provisions of the Special; Rules. Thus, the appointment of the petitioners in the writ petitions as well as subsequent promotion of respondents 3 to 16 are all effective. Neither the! petitioners nor respondents 3 to 16 in the writ petitions are now prejudiced in any manner. However, it is seen that the order passed by the learned single Judge consists of two parts, the first part quashing the order of appointment of respondents 3 to 16 to the post of Textile Control Officers and the second part consisting of a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitions for appointment to the post of Textile Control Officers. On the basis of the direction, the respondents have considered the claims of the writ petitioners for promotion and have actually granted them the promotion as Textile Control Officers which stands validated by the saving clause contained in Rule 10 of the Special Rules. The second part of the order of the learned single Judge cannot be interfered with. However, in view of the fact that after the Special Rules have been framed giving retrospective effect, respondents 3 to 16 have been promoted with retrospective effect from 30th April, 1971, the order of the learned single Judge quashing the appointment orders of respondents 3 to 16 has to be set aside. In view of the subsequent development referred to above the impugned appointments have since been validated.

3. The writ appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.


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