IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18/01/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN
W.P.No.34581 of 2003
M.Meenakshisundaram .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Chennai.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Ramanathapuram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Ramanathapuram Revenue Division
Ramanathapuram.
4. The Tahsildar
Thiruvadanai Taluk
Ramanathapuram Revenue Division
Ramanathapuram. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to order in Na.Ka.E1/28975/92 dated 20.3.1992 of the second
respondent and the impugned order dated 29.9.2003 passed in O.A.No.2878 of
1992 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai, to quash the same
and to consequently direct the respondents to regularise the service of the
petitioner with effect from his date of appointment, i.e., 21.1.1994 and pay
annual increments and other benefits with effect from 21.1.1994.
!For petitioner : Mr.K.Lavan
^For respondents-2 to 4 : Mr.S.Gomathy Nayagam
Special Government Pleader
:ORDER
CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.
The writ petition is filed praying for a Certiorarified Mandamus to
quash the order of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram, confirmed by
the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2878 of 199 2 by order dated
29.9.2003 and to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the
petitioner from the date of appointment on 21.1 .1994 with all consequential
benefits from thereon.
2. The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Karnam on 12.12.1
977 by way of temporary appointment for Velanadu Group for a period of three
months with effect from 12.12.1997. The appointment was thereafter extended
under orders dated 27.5.1978 for a further period upto 31.5.1978.
Thereafterwards, by order dated 8.6.1978, the petitioner’s services was not
extended, but was relieved on and from 31.5.1978 . It is stated that the
petitioner obtained a certificate of Karnam’s survey training as early as
1979, and even on the date of initial appointment temporarily as a Karnam, he
had passed the Pre-University Certificate in the year 1969 itself.
3. The hereditary system of village administration by the Village
Munsif and Village Karnam was abolished in Ordinance 14/80, followed by the
Act. With the result, on and from 14.11.1980, the old system of hereditary
Village Karnam and Village Munsif post was abolished and all holders of the
post were relieved thereon. The validity of the ordinance was upheld by the
High Court and Supreme Court. However, an undertaking was given on behalf of
the Government of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court that all Ex-Village
Officials who had been holding the office as on 14.11.1980 and had lost the
job on account of the ordinance would be given appointment as Village
Administrative Officers in the new set up, provided, they had the requisite
minimum general educational qualification and had not attained the age of
superannuation. It is stated by the petitioner that since he had worked in
the leave vacancies as Karnam even prior to the introduction of the Tamil Nadu
Abolition of part-time Village Officers Act, 1981, he was called for interview
by the Collector of Ramanathapuram through his letter dated 9.7.1991. The
petitioner was the successful candidate and was appointed as Village
Administrative Officer of Veeravanur Group, Paramakudi Taluk, under order
dated 2.8.1991 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram Revenue
District, Ramanathapuram, the third respondent in the writ petition. However,
the services of the petitioner was terminated under orders dated 20.3.1992 by
the second respondent, namely, the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram.
The order of the second respondent, however, stated that the services of the
petitioner appointed temporarily was terminated as per Rule 10(a)(i) of the
Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service (General) Rules. Aggrieved of the termination
without assigning any reason, the petitioner moved the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2878 of 1992, praying for an order to quash
the second respondent’s order of termination and to direct the respondents to
appoint the petitioner in any of the vacancies under their control. By an
interim order dated 19.5.1993, the Tribunal directed that if there were
vacancies available and persons similarly placed and junior to the petitioner
were appointed and continuing in the post, then the petitioner could be
appointed in any one of the vacancies temporarily. By order dated 21.1.1994,
once again the third respondent herein appointed the petitioner as Village
Administrative Officer in Pullur Group, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram
District. Ultimately, by order dated 29.9.2003, the Tribunal, however,
dismissed O.A.No.2878 of 1992, taking a view that the petitioner had not acted
as Village Munsif even for a single day, though the petitioner had claimed
that he had passed the Karnam test and hence eligible to be appointed as
Village Karnam or Village Munsif, it was not a ground to grant the petitioner
the appointment as per the new Government Order. Consequently, it held that
the appointment given was a wrong order which had been set right correctly by
the third respondent herein. Aggrieved of the said view taken by the
Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition contending that the
order of termination was unreasonable and contrary to Clause 3 of
G.O.Ms.No.954, Revenue Department dated 16.10.1997, which provided that even
temporary Part-time Village Officers who had worked for a short period prior
to 14.11.1980 possessing the required minimum qualification should be given
appointment in any existing or future vacancy as per seniority. The minimum
educational qualification required was a pass in S.S.L.C. examination and
those Village Officers who held office on 14.11.1980 should have at least
subsequently passed this examination as per G.O.Ms.No.1287, Revenue
Department, dated 6.7.1988 and sponsored through the employment exchange.
Considering the fact that the petitioner, even as early as 1969, had passed
the Pre-University Examination and had worked as a Karnam on a temporary
basis, the petitioner ought to have been considered for regular appointment.
The petitioner also submitted that similarly situated persons who were junior
to the petitioner were appointed as Village Administrative Officers and their
services were regularised subsequently; hence, the action taken against the
petitioner was arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
4. On going through G.O.Ms.No.954, Revenue Department dated 16.10.19
97, it is clear that the claims of temporary Village Officers who had worked
for a short period prior to 14.11.1980 was considered by the Government
favourably to take them for appointment as Village Administrative Officers in
the vacancies available on certain priority basis, firstly to consider the
claims of those Part-time Village Officers who held office on 14.11 .1980 and
were fully qualified in the light of the memorandum submitted by the
Government before the Supreme Court; thereafter those Part-time Village
Officers who held office on 14.11.1980 and had subsequently passed S.S.L.C.
examination for temporary appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.1287, Revenue
Department dated 6.7.1988 on being sponsored through employment exchange; and
lastly, after exhausting these two categories, to consider the claims of the
applicants who were not in service on 14.11.1980 but had worked as Part-time
Village Officers for a short period prior to 14.11.1980, if they were
otherwise fully qualified to be given appointment in any existing or future
vacancy as per seniority maintained on the basis of their length of service.
The Government Order is very specific that the Part-time Village Officers’
request should be favourably considered and accommodated against the present
or future vacancies. A perusal of the documents filed before this Court shows
that the petitioner’s case fit in with the requirements stated in the last of
the priority list that the petitioner had the requisite educational
qualification he having passed the PreUniversity Certificate as early as 1969;
that he had been appointed temporarily as early as 1977 and the services were
extended till 31.5.1978 . Considering the fact that he had worked part-time
as a Village Officer prior to 14.11.1980, the grievance of the petitioner
merits acceptance by this Court. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the
petitioner pointed out to the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
in O.A.Nos.1700 and 1701 of 1992 dated 13th January 2003, wherein, two of the
similarly placed candidates were considered for appointment by virtue of this
Government Order. In the context of such positive action in respect of
similarly placed persons and particularly in the context of the petitioner
possessing the requisite qualification as stated in the Government Order, the
order of the Tribunal that he had not acted as Village Munsif even for a day
is incorrect, factually. Equally so, even on the educational front, the view
of the Tribunal that there was no ground to grant appointment as per the new
Government Order runs contra to the terms of the very Government Order which
considered appointment of Part-time Village Officers favourably. The
petitioner has stated in Ground No.(v) that G.o.Ms.No.954 dated 16.10.1997 was
not brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal, as per which, the petitioner was
eligible to be appointed as Village Administrative Officer. In the context of
the said G.O.Ms.No.954 dated 1 6.10.1997, the petitioner, having thus
satisfied the requirements in the Government Order, the prayer in the writ
petition deserves to be accepted and allowed by this Court.
Consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 29.9.2003 is set aside
and thereby, the order dated 20.3.1992 of the second respondent is set aside
and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to
regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of his
appointment, namely, 21.1.1994 with all consequential benefits. Connected
W.P.M.P.No. 42006 of 2003 is closed. There will, however, be no order as to
costs.
ksv
To:
1. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Chennai.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Ramanathapuram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Ramanathapuram Revenue Division
Ramanathapuram.
4. The Tahsildar
Thiruvadanai Taluk
Ramanathapuram Revenue Division
Ramanathapuram.