Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the third respondent, dated 11.03.2005 and also for a direction against the respondents to accord appropriate placement to the petitioner on the basis of his regular promotion as Assistant with effect from 10.05.1985 and to confer all monetary and service benefits. 3. Under the impugned order, the third respondent was placed in the seniority list between Sl.No.206 Mr.M.A.Charles who is stated to be senior to the petitioner and Sl.No.407 Mr.S.S.Rajan Babu stated to be the junior to the petitioner by giving Sl.No.406(a). As such, under the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner to place him before the name of Mr.Rajan Babu was rejected, even though the petitioner was promoted under the presumptive panel on 10.05.1985 before the said person since at the time of preparation of panel, the said Mr.Rajanbabu was promoted on 05.05.1986 in a vacancy caused and the petitioner was promoted on 07.11.1987 in another vacancy which has caused. 4. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 22.02.1979 on compassionate ground due to the demise of his father in harness and his appointment was regularised as Junior Assistant by order dated 24.03.1982 with effect from the date of his initial appointment namely 22.02.1979. The petitioner is stated to have passed all the departmental tests for further promotion as Assistant and he was promoted as Assistant with effect from 10.05.1985 and the services in the post of Assistant was also regularised with effect from the said date by the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 04.03.1996. b) It is stated that the petitioner was granted selection grade with effect from 10.05.1995 in the post of Assistant and subsequently, he was promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer in which post he continues as on date. The next avenue of promotion from the Deputy Block Development Officer is to that of Block Development Officer and then as Assistant Director which are filled up by seniority only after verification of confidential report and service records. The next avenue of promotion from the Deputy Block Development Officer is to that of Block Development Officer and then as Assistant Director which are filled up by seniority only after verification of confidential report and service records. It is his case that since he was promoted as Assistant by an order dated 15.10.1995 with effect from 10.05.1985, therefore, he should be placed over and above the said Mr.R.Babu who was promoted after obtaining qualification after the petitioner only on 16.05.1985. But the claim of the petitioner is ignored and Mr.R.Babu was included in the promotional list and it is the further case of the petitioner that large number of juniors were promoted above the petitioner in respect of which also the petitioner has made representation on 05.06.2003 and reminder on 23.01.2004 and the said proceedings have been made in violation of the statutory rules and against the proceedings of the Director of Rural Development, dated 18.08.2004 by which a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment namely 22.02.1979 and the promotion as Assistant from 10.05.1985. By the impugned order, the petitioners name is placed in the said position. c) It is against the said impugned order, the writ petition has been filed on various grounds including that the same is against the statutory rules; that the petitioners seniority as Assistant should have been construed with effect from 10.05.1985 and that non consideration of his seniority for the promotion is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; that the petitioner having possessed all the required qualification on 17.05.1984 and was promoted with effect from 10.05.1985 and based on that he has been conferred selection grade on 10.05.1995 and therefore, consequently his service as Assistant should have been considered from the date of conferment of the said post from 10.05.1985 that the promotion have not been conferred to the petitioner under the presumptive panel. Even if it is temporarily drawn under Rule 39(a)(1) of the Tamil nadu Subordinate Service Rules, his regular promotion Assistant cannot be withdrawn especially when it is admitted that the promotion has been conferred to the petitioner as Assistant with effect from 10.05.1985. 5. Even if it is temporarily drawn under Rule 39(a)(1) of the Tamil nadu Subordinate Service Rules, his regular promotion Assistant cannot be withdrawn especially when it is admitted that the promotion has been conferred to the petitioner as Assistant with effect from 10.05.1985. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, while it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant with effect from 22.02.1979 as per the proceedings of the Collector dated 04.05.1982, it is admitted that he was promoted as Assistant on 10.05.1985 and given selection grade with effect from 10.05.1995 as per the rules. It is stated that as per the new service rules which were introduced from 12.04.1984 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1979, all the appointments including the promotions made as on 01.06.1979 and thereafter, were treated as purely temporary and the same shall be reviewed, revised and regularised according to the new service rules. 6. It is also denied that Mr.R.Babu is junior to him since the said R.Babu was appointed as Junior Assistant on 01.01.1973 and his services were regularised with effect from 01.01.1973 but the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground with effect from 22.02.1979 and therefore, the said R.Babu is earlier in service from his date of appointment. A reference has also been made to G.O.Ms.No.868, RD & LA Department, dated 30.05.1979 stating that pending formulation regarding single service rules in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Service Commission, all appointments made on or after 01.06.1979 should be treated as purely temporary and the single service rules were issued subsequently as per G.O.Ms.No.585, RD & LA Department, dated 12.04.1984 which has been given effect from 01.06.1979. 7. It is further stated that the said new rules were challenged and subsequently, the implementation of the new rules came to be introduced from 1987. Therefore, the promotion of the petitioner stated to have been effected in the year 1985 is said to be only temporary. According to the new service rules, the promotions were made as on 01.6.1979 and thereafter, upto 1987 was reviewed and inasmuch as the petitioners promotion as Assistant was 1985, the same came to be reviewed under the impugned order which according to the respondents is well founded as per the new rules. 8. According to the new service rules, the promotions were made as on 01.6.1979 and thereafter, upto 1987 was reviewed and inasmuch as the petitioners promotion as Assistant was 1985, the same came to be reviewed under the impugned order which according to the respondents is well founded as per the new rules. 8. It is stated that even though the petitioner passed all the departmental tests earlier than the said R.Babu and was promoted before the date of the said R.Babu, he was considered for the year 1987 panel only because of the new rules which ought to have been implemented with effect from 01.06.1979 and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is senior to the said R.Babu. It is further stated that in accordance with Single Service Rules integrated seniority list of Junior Assistants was drawn and the said Babu was placed at Sl.No.206 but the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.260 and the impugned order was in accordance with the Single Service Rules.While it is admitted that the promotion as Assistant in accordance with Single Service Rules in force at that time, the seniority list was drawn at that time based on the seniority list of the Junior Assistants. It is further stated that it is due to the introduction of the new service rules which was given effect on 01.06.1979 a revision was made under the impugned order and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he should be fixed as Assistant in the seniority list with effect from 10.05.1985 is not valid. It is further stated that the petitioner is junior to the R.Babu under the feeder category of Junior Assistant. But he was promoted earlier than R.Babu since the petitioner has passed all the departmental tests before his senior. Since the promotions already made, the petitioner and the said R.Babu have to be revised in accordance with the Single Service Rules and the date of passing the test alone is not a criteria for promotion but the rules laid down has to be taken into account and it is also stated that the appointments made on or after 01.06.1979 are treated to be purely temporary which included promotion also and therefore, based on the promotion given to the petitioner, earlier than Mr.R.Babu, his name in the seniority list should be placed before Mr.R.Babu has to be rejected. 9. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once the appointment of the petitioner was earlier in point of time and the subsequent promotion as Assistant was also admittedly before the date of appointment of the said R.Babu, the respondents cannot deny the right of the petitioner to place him in an appropriate place in the seniority list only on the ground of a subsequent rule which has been given retrospective effect. 10. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the appointment of the said R.Babu as Junior Assistant is earlier in point of time and the petitioner was promoted as Assistant before the date of promotion of the said R.Babu by giving promotion to the petitioner on a later date but with retrospective effect with effect from 2005 and therefore, the revision of the seniority list under the impugned order by placing the petitioner in Sl.No. 206(a) cannot said to be either invalid or illegal. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the entire documents produced before this Court. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners original appointment as Junior Assistant was on compassionate ground on 22.02.1979 and from the date on which, he is regularised and that the petitioner was promoted with effect from 10.05.1985 as Assistant by the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 04.03.1996 and subsequent promotion has also been effected. However, in respect of the said R.Babu, who is no doubt appointed as Junior Assistant earlier in point of time to that of the petitioner but was promoted as Assistant only on 16.05.1985 after he acquired necessary qualification by passing the departmental tests etc., 13. The case of the respondents is that Single Service Rules in respect of the Rural Development Department was formulated with effect from 01.06.1979 since it required consultation from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.868 RD&LA, Department, dated 30.05.1979 as directed that irrespective of the posts to which appointments were made on or after 01.06.1979, they should be treated as purely temporary without conferring any right till the rules are framed. The operative portion of which is as follows: “Pending formulation and issue of single service rules in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, all appointments made irrespective of the posts mentioned in the Annexure to this Order on or after 01.06.1979 shall be treated as purely temporary and shall not confer any rights on the persons concerned till the said service rules are issued”. 14. Even by applying the said proposition of the Government Order, the same cannot be given effect to as far as the petitioner is concerned for the simple reason that the petitioners appointment was on 22.02.1979 much before the date of giving effect of new service rules namely, 01.06.1979. 15. The case of the respondents is that the implementation of the rule was only with effect from 01.09.1987 since certain cases were pending and during that time 1985, when the petitioner was promoted as Assistant, as per the Government Order, he should be treated as temporary and to be reviewed according to the new service rules. The seniority list of the Junior Assistants as on 01.06.1979 was drawn on 04.07.1989 to all the individuals including the petitioner and the petitioner has chosen to make objection only after 10 years. The date of appointment of the said R.Babu as Junior Assistant which is before the date of appointment of the petitioner is also before the cut off date i.e., 01.06.1979 and his promotion as Assistant after passing the departmental tests on 16.05.1985 also governed by the so called Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.868 RD&LA Department, dated 30.05.1979. If that is so, both the petitioner and the said R.Babu equally has to be considered even by applying the purport of the Government Order as temporary employees and while revising the seniority list, when the said R.Babu has acquired qualification, necessary for the promotion only after the petitioner, it is not known as to how under the impugned seniority list, the petitioner is placed after the said R.Babu. 16. In such view of the matter, it is not known as to how the said R.Babu considered for the vacancy caused during 1986 while the petitioner was considered for the vacancy caused during 1987, when the petitioner got himself qualified for promotion before the date of consideration of the said R.babu. 17. 16. In such view of the matter, it is not known as to how the said R.Babu considered for the vacancy caused during 1986 while the petitioner was considered for the vacancy caused during 1987, when the petitioner got himself qualified for promotion before the date of consideration of the said R.babu. 17. In fact based on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.61-93 of 1994 (State of Tamil Nadu & others Vs.D.Savarimuthu and others), dated 04.05.1994, the Government has issued letters to all the District Collectors, dated 12.01.1995 directing that the seniority in the categories in which persons working as on 12.04.1984 came to be promoted in accordance with the new service rules is to be relevant for future promotions stating that the promotions already ordered cannot be reversed, even if the seniority of those promoted will be refixed in the light of the new service rules issued. 18. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the impugned order has not been passed with proper application of mind in respect of the fixation of seniority of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order stands set aside. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pass fresh orders after considering the issues afresh in the proper perspective and considering the claim of the petitioner as well as the case of the said Mr.R.Babu and pass appropriate orders of re-fixation of the seniority list within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.13521 of 2005 is closed.