Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2540 (MAD)

T. Rajendran v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu

2012-06-20

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT:- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Cashier in the Finance (T & A.II) Department on 23.05.1977. The petitioner thereafter passed the qualifying examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1980. 2. In pursuance to the selection by the Public Service Commission, he joined service as Junior Assistant on 12.04.1982. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 19.12.1991. 3. The Tamil Nadu Government issued instructions vide G.O.Ms.No.1133 Finance Department, dated 30.12.1968 to include the post of Cashier/Shroff in the Treasuries Department in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. 4. On 10.08.1988 vide G.O.Ms.No.444, P & A.R. Department, the Government amended the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, enabling the promotion of Cashiers with effect from 09.09.1986 to 30.06.1987. 5. In view of the amendment of Rules, number of persons filed representations for giving retrospective effect to the amendment of Rules. The representations filed by the individuals and the Associations were rejected on 27.03.1992. 6. In O.A.No.2036 of 1994, the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed an order directing the respondents to give effect to the G.O.Ms.No.444, P & AR Department, dated 10.8.1988 with effect from 08.02.1971. 7. The petitioner also filed O.A.No.5457 of 2001 for direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner within four weeks. The Government rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 01.03.2002 on the ground that service rendered by the petitioner as Cashier was only temporary. The petitioner did not challenge the order of rejection and chose to move representation to the Government on 20.01.2003 and 20.6.2004. 8. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.35734 of 2005 wherein a direction was issued to the first respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner dated 20.6.2004. The said representation stand rejected by the impugned order on 10.03.2006. 9. 8. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.35734 of 2005 wherein a direction was issued to the first respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner dated 20.6.2004. The said representation stand rejected by the impugned order on 10.03.2006. 9. The representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground, that as per the Special Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Special Recruitments (1977 & 1981) Rules, 1983, the seniority of a person in a service, class or category or grade allotted and appointed through special recruitments in 1977 and 1981 irrespective of the date regularisation shall, unless reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the T.N.P.S.C. subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. 10. In view of the position stated, the request of the petitioner could not be considered for inclusion of his service rendered as Cashier from 23.05.1977 to 27.06.1981 for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion as Accountant for the year 1983 in Cuddalore district. 11. The writ petition as framed is not maintainable for the reason that admittedly, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 01.03.2002. The petitioner instead of challenging the order of rejection, chose to file repeated representations were not statutory. 12. The impugned order has subsequently been passed only in view of the direction issued by this court on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 13. It seems that earlier order of rejection was not brought to the notice of this Court. In view of the earlier order rejecting the representation which was not challenged, no order in favour of the petitioner could be passed, as directed by this court was only to consider the representation in accordance with law. 14. Furthermore, though it was brought to the notice of this Court that the claim of the petitioner stood rejected by the Government, this Court did not quash the order of rejection, and directed the respondents to dispose of the representation. 15. Even otherwise, the relief claimed by the petitioner is that he is entitled to be empanelled for the year 1983, whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2006, and the first representation was filed only in the year 2001. 16. 15. Even otherwise, the relief claimed by the petitioner is that he is entitled to be empanelled for the year 1983, whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2006, and the first representation was filed only in the year 2001. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation was filed, in view of the decision rendered by the learned Administrative Tribunal in an identical case, cannot be a ground to condone the delay as it is well settled that benefit of judgment cannot be extended to fence sitter, so as to reopen old settled matters. 17. Consequently, finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.