Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1231 (MAD)

S. Rajakumar v. State of Tamilnadu

2025-03-03

G.ARUL MURUGAN, R.SUBRAMANIAN

body2025
JUDGMENT R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. Challenge is to the order of the Writ Court up holding the order dated 18.01.2023 made by the first respondent rejecting the claim of the appellant for inclusion in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006. 2. The appellant joined the services of the Revenue Department in the District Revenue Unit at Ramanathapuram, as a Junior Assistant on 05.01.1993. His probation was declared with effect from 04.02.1995 and his services were regularized in the cadre of Assistant with effect from 04.01.1996. He was transferred on deputation to the office of the Commissioner of Land Administration on 24.12.1996. He had completed the probation and has passed the Departmental Training Test and had undergone the Revenue Inspector Training between 27.12.2000 and 06.01.2003. He has also passed the Surveyor Test on 27.08.2003. 3. Upon obtaining the above qualifications, he had qualified for being included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006 itself in terms of Rule 7(A) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules . However, the City List of Deputy Tahsildars was never drawn up for a considerable time and the City Lists of Deputy Tahsildars for the period from 2005-2010 were published only on 01.04.2011. According to the appellant, to his dismay, he found that his name was included in the panel of City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2007 instead of 2006. He made a representation seeking that his name should have been included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006. The third respondent, in whose office the appellant was serving, made a recommendation confirming that the appellant is entitled to be included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006. 4. Since the same was not considered, the appellant made another representation on 27.12.2013. The said representation was rejected on 23.01.2017 and a Review Petition was filed. The Review was dismissed on 26.11.2019 leading to the appellant moving this Court by way of WP No.8120 of 2020. This Court by its order dated 02.11.2022 made in the aforesaid Writ Petition set aside the order and required the respondents to reconsider the issue in the light of the observations made. The Review was dismissed on 26.11.2019 leading to the appellant moving this Court by way of WP No.8120 of 2020. This Court by its order dated 02.11.2022 made in the aforesaid Writ Petition set aside the order and required the respondents to reconsider the issue in the light of the observations made. Thereafter, the matter was again examined by the respondents and the order impugned in the Writ Petition dated 18.01.2023 was passed rejecting the request on the ground that since none of his juniors were included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006, the appellant’s name cannot be included. 5. The Writ Court had accepted the contention of the respondents that since none of his juniors were included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006, the petitioner’s name cannot also be included. On the said conclusion, the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved the appellant is on Appeal. 6. We have heard Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Akash Srinanda, for the appellant and Mr.P.Ananatha Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 7. Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Akash Srinanda, for the appellant would vehemently contend that the reason assigned viz. that none of the juniors of the appellant have been included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006 and therefore, the appellant’s name cannot be included is erroneous. He would draw our attention to the admitted fact that the appellant was qualified for inclusion in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, when a list is drawn up all persons qualified will have to be included subject of post to the availability of vacancies. 8. On the availability of vacancies, the learned counsel would seek our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents which shows that one vacancy in each panel was left unfilled for want of qualified hands. This, according to the learned counsel, is incorrect, when the appellant was available as a qualified hand to be included in the 2006 panel his non- inclusion cannot be justified on the ground that none of his juniors were included. The learned counsel would also point out that the case of Giri Rani , was relied upon by him for a completely different purpose and the same has been misconstrued. 9. The learned counsel would also point out that the case of Giri Rani , was relied upon by him for a completely different purpose and the same has been misconstrued. 9. Finding the reason to be a little incongruous, we had required the respondent to file a report on the reasoning viz. the appellant’s name could not be included, since none of his juniors were included. The learned Government Pleader has produced the response of the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing. The written instructions would only reiterate the claim made in the impugned order, it does not justify the reason. The respondents have proceeded on the footing that the appellant claimed parity with D.Giri Rani, who was included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars only in the year 2010. The case of D.Giri Rani, was cited by the appellant only to show that a person was appointed whose services were confirmed in the establishment only in the year 2010, was included in the panel in the same year. Other than that the appellant had not claimed any parity with D.Giri Rani. 10. The drawing of panels have to be done year on year basis so that the candidates found in the panel are made eligible for promotion to the next higher post. In this case we find that the panels for the year 2005 to 2010 were drawn during April 2011. We are unable to fathom any reason for such inordinate delay in drawing up the panels. This kind of bunching up of panels and drawing panels with considerable delay leads to several undesirable seniority issues coming up before this Court. In the case on hand, though it is stated that the appellant’s name cannot be included in the 2006 panel, since none of his juniors’ name have been included as per the Rules in force, no such Rule has been brought to our notice. The Writ Court has also not cited any rule to that effect. 11. A person who is qualified has to be included in the panel subject to availability of vacancies in the higher posts. The Writ Court has also not cited any rule to that effect. 11. A person who is qualified has to be included in the panel subject to availability of vacancies in the higher posts. It is admitted in the counter that two vacancies, one vacancy each in the panel for the year 2006 and 2007 were left unfilled, which would mean that there was a vacancy in the higher post, despite such vacancy, the appellant was not included in the panel. If the claim of the respondents that the appellant would be included in the panel only if any of his juniors were included appears to be wholly unreasonable. If this claim is accepted and it is held that a person is entitled to be included in the panel only if his juniors are included, there won’t be any number one spot in any panel. The senior most person who is qualified to be included in the panel can also be denied inclusion of the ground none of his juniors are included. This would result in a very serious anomaly. 12. We are therefore, unable to accept the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to seek inclusion in the panel for the year 2006, as none of his juniors have been included in the panel. Admittedly, there was a vacancy and the appellant was qualified to be included. Therefore, the non-inclusion cannot at all be justified. The writ court has also concluded that since none of the juniors of the appellant were included in the list, the appellant cannot be included in the list. We are unable to uphold the conclusion of the Writ Court. As already pointed out, the last person included in the panel will be junior to the others above him, for him also none of his juniors would have been included in the panel. Therefore, if the reasoning is adopted then the last person also cannot be included in the panel. 13. We are therefore unable to sustain the order of the Writ Court, the order of the Writ Court as well as the order impugned in the Writ Petition will therefore stand set aside, the Writ Appeal will stand allowed . Therefore, if the reasoning is adopted then the last person also cannot be included in the panel. 13. We are therefore unable to sustain the order of the Writ Court, the order of the Writ Court as well as the order impugned in the Writ Petition will therefore stand set aside, the Writ Appeal will stand allowed . The respondents will include the appellant in the panel of the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006 and grant him all the benefits that would accrue to him, as he had been included in the panel even in the year 2006 with in a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.