IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28/02/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
W.P.No.26383 of 2005
S. Manickavasagam ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Treasuries & Accounts,
Saidapet, Chennai - 15.
2.G.Sugumaran
3.S.Sekaran
4.N.Kannan
5.G.Chandrababu
6.S.Saraswathy ... Respondents
This Writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of
O.A.No.5441 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a
prayer to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first
respondent in Pdl.24/2001/A1 dated 26.8.2002 as modified in Pdl.24/2001 dated
19.9.2002 and the order passed in Rc.No.Q1/33488/20 02-5 dated 3.9.2002 and
set aside the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
!For Petitioner :Mr.C.Selvaraju, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.S.Mani
^For 1st Respondent : Mrs.D.Malarvizhi,
Government Advocate
For Respondents 2 to 6 :M/s.Sudha Ravi Associates
:O R D E R
In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the
first respondent in Pdl.24/2001/A1 dated 26.8.2002 as modified in Pdl.2 4/2001
dated 19.9.2002 and the order passed in Rc.No.Q1/33488/2002-5 dated 3.9.2002
in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition
are as follows,
(a) Petitioner was appointed as Handloom Inspector in the office
of the Assistant Director of Handlooms & Textiles, Tirunelveli on 16.7.1 984,
having been selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He was
promoted as Handloom Officer on 3.2.1993, which is equivalent to the post of
Superintendent. Petitioner passed B.Com Degree in the year 1979, Accounts
Test for Subordinate Officers Part I & II in the year 1980 and thus, he is
fully qualified to be appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer in the
department of Treasuries and Accounts.
(b) In the affidavit petitioner stated that in the Department of
Treasuries and Accounts, as per the Special Rules, 60% of the post of
Assistant Accounts Officer are to be filled up from among the qualified
Superintendents of other departments on recruitment by transfer basis,
provided they possess necessary qualification and the remaining 40 % of
vacancies are to be filled up by giving promotion to the persons working in
the Treasuries & Accounts Department. The crucial date for filling up of 60%
vacancies on recruitment by transfer basis from other departments is 15th June
of every year.
(c) Petitioner further states that for the year 2001, the
Department of Treasuries & Accounts called for list of candidates from various
departments from among the Superintendents, who possess necessary
qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officers.
According to the petitioner a circular was issued to the Handloom and Textiles
Department, where the petitioner was working and he also furnished his
particulars in the proforma as he possessed the requisite qualification to be
appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer.
(d) The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit is that
the respondents 2 to 6, who were working in the Social Welfare Department,
filed O.A.Nos.6836 to 6841 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal and prayed for implementation of filling up of 60% vacancies in the
Treasuries & Accounts Department, in strict compliance with the Government
Order and special rules. The apprehension expressed by the respondents 2 to 6
is that the Treasuries and Accounts Department may not fill up 60% of the
vacancies meant for outsiders after filling up 40% of the vacancies earmarked
for the department and thus the outsiders will be prejudiced if the quota of
60% is not filled up simultaneously. The Tribunal ordered to prepare a panel
for the year 2000-2001 and include the names of the respondents 2 to 6 also in
the panel and their name can be rejected only if seniors are available in the
Ministerial service, that is, in other departments.
(e) Further case of the petitioner is that the panel for the year
20 00-2001 was published on 13.6.2002 and based on the panel petitioner was
promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer, inasmuch as his name was placed at
No.4 in the panel dated 13.6.2002. According to the petitioner, all the
persons included in the panel were seniors to the respondents 2 to 6 herein
and therefore the order of the Tribunal is not in any way violated. The case
of the petitioner is that the department misunderstood the order of the
Tribunal as if respondents 2 to 6 should be included in the panel and thereby
revised the panel by order dated 26.8.2002. Consequently petitioner was
reverted back from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer by order dated
3.9.2002, but no order of reversion was served on the petitioner and hence he
was holding the post of Assistant Accounts Officer as per the original
promotion. As one of the respondent’s name was not included in the panel, he
filed a contempt application and subsequently the panel was again revised on
19.9.2002. According to the petitioner the orders passed by the first
respondent on 26.8.2002, 3.9.2002 and 19.9.2002 having been passed arbitrarily
and with non-application of mind, the same are challenged in this writ
petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that 60% of the
vacancies in the Treasuries and Accounts Department in the cadre of Assistant
Accounts Officer are to be strictly filled up on recruitment by transfer basis
from other departments and strictly as per the seniority and the State
Administrative Tribunal only directed to include the respondents 2 to 6 in the
panel and give them promotion only if they are seniors to the persons found in
the panel. Petitioner having been senior to respondents 2 to 6, there is no
reason to revert him for including respondents 2 to 6 in the panel and the
said action of the first respondent is without application of mind.
4. The learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 2 to 6 submitted that there is no illegality or
irregularity in the orders passed by the first respondent and respondents 2 to
6 are entitled to get promotion as per the order of the Tribunal made in
O.A.Nos.6836 to 6841 of 2001 dated 27.2.2002.
5. A bare reading of the order of the Tribunal dated 27.2.2002
and the relevant rule makes it clear that 60% vacancies in the post of
Assistant Accounts Officer shall be filled up only from among the eligible
candidates of other departments strictly on the basis of seniority in the
cadre of Superintendents. In the order passed by the Tribunal a specific
direction is given to include the name of the respondents 2 to 6 only if there
is no seniors to them in other departments. Admittedly petitioner is senior
to respondents 2 to 6, working in the department of Handloom and Textiles.
6. The learned Government Advocate pointed out Rule 11 of the
Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services Special Rules, which says
that seniority of Superintendents in the department other than Treasuries and
Accounts Department shall be fixed from the date of regular appointment.
According to the learned Government Advocate, since the petitioner has been
temporarily promoted as Handloom Officer, that is in the feeder category to
the Assistant Accounts Officer panel and his services were not regularised,
his name is not entitled to be considered for the panel prepared for the year
2000-2001 based on the directions issued by the Tribunal dated 27.2.2002.
7. A perusal of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and
Accounts Services Special Rules clearly establishes that regularisation is
necessary either in the cadre of Special Treasury Officer Grade II or
Superintendent Grade II and in the said feeder categories respectively. For
proper appreciation of the rule, the said rule is extracted hereunder,
“11.SENIORITY: For the purpose of appointment to the post in Class
IV, the inter-se-seniority of the persons selected from the posts of Sub
Treasury Officer Grade I, Superintendents Grade I and from the post in the
feeder categories namely, Accountants, Superintendents etc., in the Department
other than Treasuries and Accounts Department shall be fixed with reference to
the dates of their regular appointment in the post of Sub Treasury Officer
Grade II or Superintendents Grade II and in the said feeder categories
respectively.”
8. It is not the case of the department that the petitioner’s
service was not regularised in the department of Handloom and Textiles. The
counter affidavit proceeds on the basis that the petitioner’s service was not
regularised in the cadre of Handloom Officer (equivalent to Superintendent).
Petitioner having been appointed as Handloom Inspector and his services having
been regularised in that cadre, there is no necessity to get regularisation of
the services in the promoted post of Handloom Officer because in the feeder
category his services were already regularised. Therefore, there is no
substance in the contention of the department that the services of the
petitioner in the cadre of Handloom Officer having not been regularised,
petitioner is not entitled to get promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer in
the Treasuries and Accounts department. The above referred rule is also
considered by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in its order dated
27.2.2002 in O.A.No.6836 of 2001 etc., wherein the qualifications prescribed
for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer are clearly mentioned, which reads
as under,
“a) Must possess the minimum General Educational qualification.
b) Must have passed Accountant Test for Subordinate Officers Part I & II.
c) Must have passed Accountant Higher Grade or must be a commerce
graduate from a recognised University.
d) Must have worked as Superintendent/ Accountant/ Commercial Accountant/
Auditors borne on the Tamil Nadu Ministerial service or any other similar
supervisory post carrying pay not less than that of the Superintendent in any
other service in sections dealing with subjects relating to accounts, audit,
budgeting or control of expenditure for a period of not less than 2 years.
e) Must be as approved probationer in the category from which appointment
made or in any of the lower categories in that service to which he was
recruited.”
The said rule also clearly establishes the right of the petitioner that no
regularisation in the immediate category is necessary, whereas regularisation
is required only in the feeder category or in the lower category in which he
was recruited.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I hold the stand of the department
is unsustainable and the respondents 2 to 6 are admittedly juniors to the
petitioner and the reversion of petitioner from the post of Assistant Accounts
Officer, affecting his seniority, is unsustainable.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No
costs.
Index : Yes
Website : Yes
To
The Special Commissioner
and Commissioner
of Treasuries & Accounts,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.