| Headnote |
Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS) –r.5(g) in Annexure-III, item No.(ii) (amended) – Promotion to thepost of Deputy Tahsildar – Supreme Court in M. Rathinaswami andOthers v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009) 5 SCC 625 readdown the r.5(g) to the extent that it gives preference to the Directrecruits Assistants over the Promotee Assistants who are graduates– In compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, theGovernment issued directions to implement the said judgment –Accordingly, District Collectors of Tiruchirappalli, Sivagaujai etc.passed orders redrawing the seniority list by treating the Directrecruit Assistants on par with the Promotee graduate Assistants –Writ petitions were filed by Promotee non-graduate Assistants andDirect recruit Assistants – Single Judge of High Court dismissedthe writ petitions – However, Division Bench of High Court set asidethe judgment of the Single Judge and directed the State to draw theseniority list taking Direct recruit Assistants, Promotee graduateAssistants and Promotee non-graduate Assistants as one group forpromotion as Deputy Tahsildar – On appeal, held: Division Benchfailed to notice that the amendment to r.5(g) of TNRSS Rules wasupheld by the Supreme Court and has attained finality – The directionof the Division Bench to treat all three categories viz. Promoteenon-graduate Assistants and Direct recruit Assistants as one groupfor the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar amounted toreversing the judgment of Supreme Court – Direction of the HighCourt was wholly misconceived – By virtue of the judgment ofSupreme Court, it is clear that Promotee graduate Assistants areplaced on par with Direct recruit Assistants – So far as Promoteenon-graduate Assistants are concerned, the amended rule holdsthe field, which gives preferential treatment to Direct recruit 340[2019] 5 S.C.R. 340341Assistants, over Promotee non-graduate Assistants – Thus, impugnedjudgment 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 readingdown into the Rule that the promotee graduate Assistants are to betreated on par with Direct recruit Assistants – Appellants and theState contended that the implementation of the said judgment/orderwith effect from 04.12.1978 would create unprecedented confusionand upset the settled position of Direct recruit Assistants who werepromoted from 1995 till 2009 by virtue of the amended Rule conferringpreferential treatment on the Direct recruit Assistants – If such acourse of action is permitted, it would seriously prejudice the rightsof those of the Direct recruit Assistants who have been promotedfrom 1995 – Held: Directions issued to the effect that promotions ofthe Direct recruit Assistants effected between 07.02.1995 and08.04.2009 and their seniority in their respective positions as ondate, not to be disturbed – Further, the benefit extended to thegraduate promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Directrecruit Assistants is to be given effect to prospectively from the dateof judgment of Supreme Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in thecase of M. Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009)5 SCC 625 – After 08.04.2009, the promotion to the post of DeputyTahsildar from its feeder category, i.e., Direct recruit Assistants andPromotee graduate Assistants, shall be strictly in accordance withthe said judgment i.e., treating Promotee graduate Assistants onpar with Direct recruit Assistants.Allowing the appeals, the CourtHELD: 1. The question involved in these appeals is theimplementation of the amendment to Rule 5(g) of Tamil NaduRevenue 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 Courtupheld the amendment to the rule qua Promotee non-graduateAssistants and read down the rule insofar as the Promoteegraduate Assistants. [Para 10] [351-C-D] A. RAJAGOPALAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.2. The State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. No.884 wherebydirections were issued to amend Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III,item(ii) of TNRSS Rules retrospectively i.e. with effect from04.12.1978. Accordingly, G.O. No.133 dated 07.02.1995 wasissued providing amendment to the statutory Rules. The validityof the amendment to Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III item (ii) to theTNRSS Rules in G.O. Nos. 884 and 133 dated 12.08.1992 and07.02.1995 has been upheld by the Supreme Court inRathinaswami. While upholding the amendment to the Rule, theSupreme Court read down into the Rule to the extent that it givespreference to the Direct Recruit Assistants over the PromoteeAssistants who are graduates. The Supreme Court held that theamended rule giving preference to the Direct recruit Assistantswould be applicable only to the Promotee non-graduate Assistantsand Rule would be inapplicable to the Promotee Assistants whoare graduates. [Para 11] [351-D-G]3. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in directingthe State to treat the Promotee non-graduate Assistants,Promotee graduate Assistants and Direct recruit Assistants asone category and draw revised seniority list for the purpose ofpromotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The Division Benchfailed to notice that the amendment to Rule 5(g) of TNRSS Rulesby G.O. No.133 dated 07.02.1995 has been upheld by the SupremeCourt and has attained finality. The direction of the DivisionBench to treat all three categories viz. Promotee non-graduateAssistants, Promotee graduate Assistants and Direct recruitAssistants as one group for the promotion to the post of DeputyTahsildar virtually amounts to reversing the judgment of theSupreme Court. The direction of the Division Bench in theimpugned 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 orderof the Supreme Court in Rathinaswami dated 08.04.2009. Asrightly pointed out by the appellants and the State, theimplementation of the order with effect from 04.12.1978 wouldcreate unprecedented confusion and upset the settled positionof Direct recruit Assistants who had been promoted from 1995till 2009 by virtue of the amended Rule conferring preferential343treatment on the Direct recruit Assistants. If such a course ofaction is permitted, it would seriously prejudice the rights of thoseof the Direct recruit Assistants who have been promoted from1995. [Para 17] [354-D-G]5. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Courtis set aside and these appeals are allowed with the followingobservations and directions:-(i) Promotions of the Direct recruit Assistants effected between07.02.1995 and 08.04.2009 and their seniority in theirrespective positions as on date, shall not be disturbed;(ii) The benefit extended to the graduate promotee Assistantsby placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants is tobe given effect to prospectively from the date of judgmentof 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 DeputyTahsildar from its feeder category, i.e., Direct recruitAssistants and Promotee graduate Assistants, shall bestrictly in accordance with the judgment of this Courtreferred above, i.e., treating Promotee graduate Assistantson par with Direct recruit Assistants. Such promotion shallbe 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, after08.04.2009 for promoting the Assistants to the post ofDeputy Tahsildars in Tamil Nadu Revenue SubordinateService contrary to the judgment of this Court dated08.04.2009, such panels and promotions have to be revisedso as to bring in conformity with the judgment of this Courtreferred above;(v) By virtue of the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009,referred above, Promotee graduate Assistants are placedon par with Direct recruit Assistants. So far as Promoteenon-graduate Assistants are concerned, the amended ruleholds the field, which gives preferential treatment to Directrecruit Assistants, over Promotee non-graduate Assistants; A. RAJAGOPALAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.(vi) Promotee non-graduate Assistants, who are impleaded asparty respondents in these appeals, are not entitled to anydirections in their favour, as much as, all these appeals arepreferred by Direct recruit Assistants;(vii) While implementing the above directions, if the seniorityand promotion, of the persons who are already retired ordead, is affected in any manner, payments made on accountof such seniority and promotion earlier granted to themduring the interregnum period, i.e., from 08.04.2009 tillthis 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 forappropriate amendment to the Rules, in which event it isopen to Government to consider such request on its ownmerits. [Para 19] [355-A-G; 356-A-B] |
