w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



R. Pirabala v/s The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Chennai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

    W.P.(MD)Nos. 7150, 7894, 8377, 8383, 8389, 8394, 8396, 8445, 8467, 8473, 8473, 8481, 8485, 8489, 8492, 8494 and 8766 of 2020 W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6586, 6812, 7353 to 7355, 7785, 7786, 7790, 7791, 7794, 7795, 7801, 7802, 7803, 7805, 7826, 7827, 7851, 7853, 7857, 7858, 7865, 7866, 7868 to 7873, 7876, 7878, 8057 & 8058 of 2020

    Decided On, 21 August 2020

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

    For the Petitioners: AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s. AL. Gandhimathi, G. Prabhu Rajadurai, M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Veera Kathiravan, Senior counsel, C. Gangai Amaran, M. Saravanan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R5 to R25, R27 to R29 & R31-R35, K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by J. Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader, C. Jeganathan, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in ref. Na.Ka.No. 6293/2017-1/A2 dated 05.03.2020 and Na.Ka.No.5293/2017-2/A2 dated 05.03.2020 and quash the same and restore the petitioners as Deputy Tahsildars with all attendant monetary and other benefits.)

Common Order:

These batch of Writ Petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners, who are either Revenue Assistants or Senior Revenue Inspectors or Deputy Tahsildars promoted so in three revenue districts, namely, Ramanathapuram, Dindigul and Pudukottai. In respect of each of the districts, one or two cases of this batch are taken up as lead case to narrate the facts. Accordingly, those lead writ petitions, where arguments were advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and replied by Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader, are taken up.

2. Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions in this batch are one and the same, these batch of cases, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, are taken up for joint hearing and accordingly, are being disposed of by this common order.

3. In order to appreciate the facts in general, which lead to filing of these batch cases, the following facts are required to be noticed in nutshell:

(a) The post of Deputy Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service is to be filled up by recruitment by transfer from the members of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service or from the members of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service employed in the Revenue Department cum Board of Revenue and such other departments like, Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Director of Survey and Settlement, Director of Harijan Welfare and Director of Backward Classes, Director of Rehabilitation etc.

(b) Mainly, the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service is filled up by way of recruitment by transfer and the feeder category for such recruitment by transfer is either Revenue Assistants or Revenue Inspectors, who are either by direct recruitment or by promotion reached the stage of Revenue Assistants/Revenue Inspectors. Since the recruitment by transfer is only by way of promotion from the said feeder category, namely, Revenue Assistants/Revenue Inspectors, the entire posts of Deputy Tahsildar are filled up only through the said method.

(c) In this regard, there had been number of issues arose as to how to fix the inter-se seniority among the Assistants/Revenue Inspectors both directly appointed and promotees and in this regard, as to whether the rule of reservation to be applied or not in the post of Deputy Tahsildar, also had been an issue. Rule 6 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue Rules') provided for such reservation and in this regard, some amendment also had been taken place with the result the reservation issue seems to have been taken to the Court of law. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Tamil Nadu and others v. S.Balasubramanian and others reported in 1995 (6) SCC 642 has resolved the issue thereby the Rule 6 as amended has attained its finality thus the reservation policy has to be followed in case of appointment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar.

(d) Yet another issue also concerning the applicability of reservation policy to the post of Deputy Tahsildar had again engaged the law Courts, where, the issue was, whether the recruitment to post, which carry a higher pay and higher responsibility by way of transfer, would amount to promotion or not. In this context, it seems to have a contention that, since the post of Deputy Tahsildar is filled up only by way of promotion that cannot be treated as an initial appointment and accordingly, reservation cannot be made under Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. That issue also has again gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9334/2018, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that, the post of Deputy Tahsildar to be filled up is only by way of transfer and by taking the explanation given under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules for the term 'promotion' under clause 2(13) and 2(15-A) under the head 'transfer', has also held that the appointment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, though is made by way of promotion from the feeder category, that method of recruitment is only by way of transfer, as has been quoted in the relevant rule, therefore, the reservation shall be made applicable to the said post of Deputy Tahsildar as if that is an initial recruitment.

(e) In view of the said judgment made in Civil Appeal No.9334/2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. Registration Department, SC/ST and MBC Employees General Welfare Sangam and Another etc., dated 11.09.2018 as well as the earlier order made in the judgment cited supra ie., 1995 (6) SCC 642, the issue as to whether the reservation policy has to be applied to the post of Deputy Tahsildar has been given a quietus. Therefore, it has become an inevitability that, while making or preparing the panel fit for promotion, by way of transfer, to fill up the post of Deputy Tahsildar, the appointing authority has to strictly follow the reservation policy, as per the law declared by the Apex Court, especially in the context of Section 6 of the Revenue Rules.

(f) Apart from the aforesaid issue, yet another issue has cropped up for consideration before the Court of law. There are two set of people in the feeder category ie., the Revenue Assistants (Direct recruit Assistants and Promotee Assistants) fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service. From the post of Revenue Assistants, the further promotion is to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. Therefore, for the drawal of panel for the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, an inter-se seniority list is to be prepared for every year among the promotee Assistants and direct recruited Assistants. It is to be noted that, the promotee assistants are the promotees from the feeder category ie., Junior Assistants, Typist, Village Administrative Officer, etc., and in the same assistant cadre, direct recruitment also is made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) by competitive examinations. Therefore, there are two set of Assistants, one is promotee Assistants and another is direct recruited assistants in the revenue department, who constitute the feeder category to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. In this context, there has been always conflict between the direct recruitees and the promotees and in this context, whenever a seniority list is prepared for the purpose of preparing the panel to promote Assistants to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, there were litigations, as one set of people i.e, promotee Assistants make a claim that, the list is to be prepared only by going the calender year, however, the direct recruited Assistants would make a claim that, it should be as per the panel year.

(g) This controversy also has gone to a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.836 of 2018 etc. batch, in the matter of A.Senthilkumar and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others, where, a Division Bench of this Court, by its elaborate order dated 30.08.2019, after exhaustively discussed the issue, has ultimately given the following directions in its operative part:

“27. In the result, the Writ Appeal (MD)Nos.836, 892, 974 and 1683 of 2018 and W.P(MD)No.17169 of 2018 are disposed of as follows:-

(a) the orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent Government to make necessary amendments to the relevant rules indicating the date of preparing the seniority list by taking note of the observations and findings rendered supra.

(b) the preparation of seniority list in this case should not go either by calendar year or by fixing 15th March as the crucial date.

(c) such seniority list is to be prepared by giving a reasonable gap between the date of preparation of such list and date of preparation of panel for promotion.

(d) the inter se seniority of the direct recruit assistants shall be fixed by strictly following the cyclical order referred to under Clause 9 of Annexure IX of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

(e) the first respondent Government thus shall pass appropriate orders making amendment to the rules as directed supra within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(f) on the basis of the orders to be passed by the first respondent Government amending the rules, the authority concerned shall prepare the subject matter seniority list afresh accordingly within a period of four weeks thereafter.

(g) the seniority list as well as panel for promotion to the next higher post shall be prepared for every year without accumulating the same for years together. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

(h) Pursuant to this order of the Division Bench (hereinafter referred to as Division Bench judgment in WA(MD) No.836/2018), steps are to be taken by the State Government to amend the rule in order to fix the date of preparation of panel instead of having two dates, namely, calendar year or 15th March of every year as panel year.

(i) Though the Division Bench has given two months time in Paragraph 27(e) of the order referred to above to make the amendment to the Rules and further four weeks time was granted by the Division Bench to prepare the subject matter seniority list afresh accordingly, it seems that, no such amendment so far has been made. Therefore, no such preparation, pursuant to the said amendment as directed in the Division Bench judgment stated supra, has been complied. In the meanwhile, in every revenue units/districts, there arises vacancies in the post of Deputy Tahsildar, which were not filled up in the past due to these litigations. With the result, the district revenue department confronted with some difficulties in the district administration, as many number of Deputy Tahsildars posts in a Revenue district, since are kept vacant, so many governmental schemes being implemented or monitored through the revenue administration of the districts concerned are wholly affected in its implementation.

(j) Therefore, in that circumstances, in some of the revenue districts, it seems that, some permanent panel have been prepared by adopting the reservation policy and in some of the revenue districts, such panel could not be prepared. However, in view of the urgency, where, the district administration required the vacancies, which were large in number, have to be filled up to meet out the contingencies, it seems they have drawn up the panel on temporary basis and accordingly, temporary promotions were given.

(k) In this context, atleast in three revenue districts, namely, Ramanathapuram, Dindigul and Pudukottai revenue districts, such kind of panel are either prepared or promotions on temporary basis have been given to fill up the vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar in the revenue districts/units concerned. Aggrieved over the preparation of such temporary panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, either the direct recruitee assistants or promotee assistants, as the case may be, depending upon, those aggrieved over such temporary preparation of panel/promotion, have approached this Court and filed these writ petitions.

(l) In order to appreciate the relevant facts in respect of each of the three revenue districts referred to above, it is taken up one by one.

4. Dindigul District:

In Dindigul District, the District Collector, by order dated 14.07.2020, has given promotions to 15 persons, who were senior Revenue Inspectors, as temporary Deputy Tahsildars and accordingly posting orders have been given. In order to appreciate the said order, the relevant portion of the order dated 14.07.2020 of the District Collector is extracted hereunder:

“TAMIL”

Pursuant to the said order, dated 14.07.2020, those promotees claimed to have joined in the promoted post as Deputy Tahsildar in the respective places, where they have been posted.

(ii). Thereafter it seems that, some aggrieved persons of the said promotion, ie., other set of Revenue Assistants, represented before the District Collector, who, on considering the same, has passed yet another order within a weeks time on 23.07.2020, where the District Collector has kept the earlier order dated 14.07.2020 in abeyance. In order to appreciate the said order dated 23.07.2020, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“TAMIL”

(iii). Aggrieved over the order dated 23.07.2020, wherein, the beneficiaries of 14.07.2020 order and their promotions, since have been kept in abeyance, have moved W.P.(MD) No.8467/2020 challenging the order dated 23.07.2020 of the District Collector, Dindigul.

(iv). Simultaneously, the other set of Revenue Assistants, who were not considered by the District Collector, Dindigul for giving temporary promotion by his order dated 14.07.2020, challenged the said order dated 14.07.2020 and has filed the W.P.(MD) No.8445/2020 on the ground that, the order dated 14.07.2020 giving promotions to 15 persons on temporary basis is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, i.e., 1995 (6) SCC 642 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.9334/2018 dated 11.09.2018 and the consequential G.O.Ms.No. 87, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing, (Ser. 3(2)) Section, dated 06.03.2019 as well as the circular issued by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 31.10.2019. Therefore, these two writ petitions, namely, W.P.(MD) Nos.8467/2020 and 8445/2020 were filed in relation to Dindigul District, where, temporary promotion has been initially given on 14.07.2020, subsequently, the said promotion order has been kept in abeyance by order dated 23.07.2020.

5. Pudukottai District:

In respect of revenue district of Pudukottai, pursuant to the Division Bench order in Writ Appeal No.836/2018 etc. batch, the Pudukottai District Collector, by communication dated 23.09.2019, made a request to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Administration, Chennai and the Additional Chief Secretary, Chennai. The District Collector, Pudukottai, in the said request dated 23.09.2019, has stated that, pursuant to the order dated 30.08.2019, in writ appeal Nos.836/2018 etc. batch with regard to the drawal of panel, there had been conflict between two groups of Revenue Assistants, ie., direct recruitees and promotees and in this regard, though some negotiations went on at the instance of the District Collector, on 23.09.2019, the Revenue Assistants Association consisting of 405 members taken Casual Leave by way of agitation and thereafter some conciliation talks taken place in the presence of the District Collector and ultimately, the District Collector have subsided the agitated employees stating that, the issue would be resolved soon after getting necessary nod from the Government to fill up the 38 vacant posts in the category of Deputy Tahsildar in Pudukottai Dsitrict. The operative portion of the request made by the District Collector, Pudukottai, in his communication dated 23.09.2019 reads thus:

“TAMIL”

(ii). It is interesting to note that, pursuant to the said request of the District Collector dated 23.09.2019, the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, vide letter dated 31.10.2019, has given the following reply:

“I invite kind attention to the reference cited.

2) In the reference 2nd cited, clarification was sought in regard to giving temporary promotion to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar under Rule 39(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules in view of vacancy of 38 Deputy Tahsildars posts in the District which lead to inconvenience to the District Administration in implementing the welfare schemes like Kisan Vikas Scheme, Kudimaramathu, House site patta, issue of certificates and court cases. In this regard, the proposal received from the District Collecotr has been examined. In the wake of judgment dated 30.08.2019 made in W.A.836 etc. of 2018 and W.A.942 and 965 of 2018, a detailed proposal for issue of amendment to the rules as per G.O.(Ms) No.93, Revenue Department, dated 20.02.2015 and for amendment to the rules indicating date of preparing the seniority list of Assistants have been sent to Government and the same is under consideration of the Government.

3) In this connection, it is informed that the District Collector is the appointing authority for Deputy Tahsildar. Hence, a decision on giving temporary promotion to the eligible Assistants as Deputy Tahsildar as empowered under Rule 39(a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules may be taken at the level of District Collector as per rule in force after taking into account the court orders, the pending court cases, if any.

Yours faithfully,

S/d. M.Lakshmi

Joint Commissioner (R.A)

for Principal Secretary/

Commissioner of Revenue Administration”

(iii). Pursuant to the said reply given by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, dated 31.10.2019, the District Collector seems to have acted upon and by invoking Rules 39(a(i)) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (in short 'the Rules'), she has given temporary promotion to 36 senior revenue inspectors to the post of Deputy Tahsildars by order dated 01.11.2019. In the said order also, similar conditions as that of the conditions imposed in Dindigul Collector's order, have been imposed.

(iv). However, it seems that, the other set of people, ie, Revenue Assistants by direct recruitment seems to have agitated the issue and taken up to the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Revenue Administration, who, on considering the same, by communication dated 14.01.2020, has given the following directive to the Pudukottai District Collector:

“TAMIL”

(v). Though the said order/directive issued by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 14.01.2020 was under challenge in W.P.(MD) No.2848/2020 by the beneficiaries of the order of the Pudukottai District Collector, dated 01.11.2019, the said writ petition stated to be pending before this Court, where, no interim order has been passed.

(vi). Subsequently, on 05.03.2020, the Pudukottai District Collector, in pursuance or in compliance of the directive issued by the Commissioner of Revenue administration, dated 14.01.2020, has cancelled the temporary promotion given to the 36 people by her order dated 01.11.2019 and on the same day, ie., on 05.03.2020, the District Collector has given temporary promotion and postins to another 36 persons to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. Here also, the very same conditions, as has been imposed in other orders referred to above, have been imposed. Therefore, challenging the latest order dated 05.03.2020, the beneficiaries of earlier order of the District Collector dated 01.11.2019, has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 7150/2020.

6. Ramanathapuram District:

In this District also, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by order dated 10.03.2020 has prepared the panel fit for promotion to be given to 29 persons to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, where, according to the District Collector, Rule of reservation with regard to SC and ST communities has been followed.

(ii). The said order dated 10.03.2020 giving temporary promotion has been passed neither by invoking rule 39(a(i)) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules nor the analogous provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Service) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ie., Section 47(1), however as a regular panel for giving promotion on regular basis for Deputy Tahsildar post subject to the orders to be passed by the Government, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.836 etc batch dated 30.08.2019.

(iii). Challenging this temporary panel dated 10.03.2020 issued by the Ramanathapuram District Collector, the aggrieved persons filed W.P.(MD) No.7894/2020. Similarly, some other set of people aggrieved over such temporary promotion given by Ramanathapuram District Collector on various dates such as 26.06.2020, 16.07.2020 has filed W.P.No.8766/2020.

7. This is how these batch of writ petitions have been filed.

8. The W.P. numbers referred to the above narration of facts are only lead cases, the other writ petitions have also been filed with similar prayer in respect of either the preparation of penal or giving temporary promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in these three districts. Therefore, the issue raised in all these writ petitions are covered under the aforesaid factual matrix.

9. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and other learned counsel and also Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents State.

10. The issue, as to whether the rule of reservation has to be followed in the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service, is no more an issue now, as that issue has already been settled by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, Rule 6 of the Special Rules, ie., the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Services Rules, reads thus:

“6. Reservation of Appointments:

Subject to the provisions of Rule 5(d), the rule of reservation of appointments (General Rule 22) shall apply to the category of Deputy Tahsildars in each district at the time of Selection for inclusion in the list.

(G.O.Ms.No.1256), Revenue, dated 20.06.1977)

(With effect from 20.06.1977)

Provided that this rule shall not apply to the appointment to the said category of Deputy Tahsildars if any person who was recruited to the Madras Ministerial Service as an Upper Division Clerk in the Revenue Department for Employment as Probationary Revenue Inspector.”

11. The said Rule 6 has already been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has upheld its validity. Therefore, there is no quarrel on that issue as to whether the rule of reservation has to be applied to the post of Deputy Tahsildar or not.

12. In this context, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.8445/2020, has made vehement contentions that, in view of the rule position and in view of the legal position as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, followed by G.O.Ms.No.87, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 06.03.2019 issued by the State Government, the respondent State and the District administration cannot move any temporary promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar without following the rule of reservation, that is his main bone of contention. He would also submit that, in the impugned order passed by the Dindigul Collector, dated 14.07.2020, giving temporary promotion to the 15 persons as Deputy Tahsildar, he has stated nothing that these promotions were given by operating the emergency provisions either under Section 47(1) of the Act or under Section 39(a(i)) of the Rules. Therefore, the mere statement of the District Collector to state that, these promotions have been given only on administration grounds, cannot fill the gap that these promotions have been made only by invoking the temporary provisions in the Act and Rules referred to above and therefore, the said impugned order cannot be improved now by the respondent State by stating that, these promotions have been made in order to meet the contingencies especially in the COVID-19 situation, where the revenue administration in the forefront, has to coordinate with the State and Central Government for implementation and monitoring of the schemes. Therefore, he contended that, the impugned order dated 14.07.2020 passed by the District Collector, Dindigul has to be quashed.

13. In respect of other writ petitions, the arguments advanced by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel, who appeared for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.7150 of 2020 relates to Pudukottai District and Mr.G.Prabu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P. (MD) No.7894/2020 relate to Ramanathapuram District. They made submissions to state that, the relevant rule governing the service conditions especially the preparation of panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service is that, the Rule 38 (b(ii)) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, which have to be strictly followed. According to them, the procedure for appointment, training and conditions of service of directly recruited Assistants are to be dealt with only by way of adopting the method as prescribed under clause 9 of annexure IX of the Ministerial Service Rules read with rule 38(b(ii)). In this context, the clause 9 of Annexure IX has been quoted heavily by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners opposing the drawal of temporary panel. For the sake of convenience, the relevant rule ie., Rule 38(b)(ii) and clause 9 of Annexure IX of the Ministerial Service Rule is extracted hereunder:

“38(b)(ii) Appointment, training and condition of service of directly recruited Assistants:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, the rules in Annexure IX govern the direct recruitment of Assistants in the Revenue Department.”

Clause 9 of Annexure IX of the Ministerial Service Rules referred to in Rule 38(b)(ii) reads as follows:

9. The inter se seniority of the directly recruited Assistants in the districts shall be fixed in the following cyclical order irrespective of the date of their joining duty.

(a) First two vacancies-Persons appointed by promotion.

(b) Third vacancy-Persons appointed by direct recruitment.

(c) Fourth and fifth vacancies–Persons appointed by promotion.

(d) Sixth vacancy-Persons appointed by direct recruitment.”

14. By quoting the aforesaid rule, the learned counsel would make their submissions that, the seniority is to be fixed only by applying the rule of cyclical representation between the promotee and direct recruitee assistants, who are fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service. Therefore, the ratio is 2:1, which means, the first two vacancies could be filled up from the persons appointed by promotion, third vacancy shall be filled up by the person appointed by direct recruitment, fourth and fifth vacancy should be filled by persons appointed by promotion and sixth vacancy by person appointed by direct recruitment.

15. This cyclical form of representation, while preparing the seniority among Assistants for promotion for the post of Deputy Tahsildar, have to be followed strictly and this has been exactly directed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.836/2018 etc. batch vide order dated 30.08.2019, especially under clause (d) of paragraph 27 of the judgment. While that being so, without having adopted the cyclical form of representation among the promotees and direct recruited Assistants, while preparing the seniority/panel, since this adhoc preparation of panel and promotions have been made by the respective District Collectors, this has been challenged by the affected persons/Assistants in these batch of cases and therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the parties, who oppose such temporary promotions, vehemently contended that, such kind of temporary promotion, without following the cyclical form of representation between these two groups, is totally unsustainable, unjustifiable and arbitrary, therefore, the entire promotion given in these revenue districts are to be interfered with.

16. However, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel as well as some other counsel appearing for the beneficiaries of these adhoc promotion or temporary promotion, have made submissions stating that, nowhere, in such promotion, it has been stated that, it is a regular promotion and stringent conditions have been imposed, where they had specifically stated that, it is purely an adhoc and temporary promotion in order to meet the contingencies and by virtue of these contingencies and adhoc promotion, none of the promotees have been conferred any right and it has been given condition that once the regular panel is prepared and regular promotees are given promotions, some of the promotees now benefited by virtue of adhoc promotion may be reverted back and in such circumstances, such reversion would be made without reference to the promotees. The learned counsel would further submit that, in view of this stringent conditions, having been attached in the impugned temporary promotion/adhoc promotion order, other group of people, who have not been promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, may not have any grievance at present. The learned Senior counsel would also contend that, insofar as the legal position as to whether the rule of reservation has to be applied to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and cyclical form of representation has to be adopted as per clause 9 of Annexure IX of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and the judgment rendered in this regard by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, absolutely, there is no quarrel, as those legal positions have been well settled. The learned Senior counsel would also submit that, since these temporary promotions have been given by invoking or operating the emergency provisions available in the Act as well as in the rules, and has been made in order to meet the contingency, the same need not be questioned or testified within the parameters of the legal position, as has been projected by the petitioners' side. Therefore, these temporary promotions can be permitted to be in operation for shortest period till the State Government come forward with amendment of the Rule pursuant to the Division Bench order and thereafter, every District Collector including the three District Collectors, can go ahead with the preparation of regular panel strictly following the cyclical form of representation as well as rule of reservation and accordingly, regular seniority cum panel can very well be prepared from among both categories and accordingly, regular promotions can be given. Therefore, till such time, the temporary promotions need not be interfered with, he contended.

17. Apart from these submissions made by the learned respective counsel for private parties, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that, pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 30.08.2019, the Government is taking active steps to amend the rule as directed by the Division Bench and the amendment process is on and it will take at least another four weeks time to complete the amendment and once the amendment is made in the rule, necessary directives would be issued by the Government and the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. Based on such directives, the District Collectors, who are the head of the revenue Districts, to draw the panel on regular basis by strictly following the rule of reservation and cyclical form of representation and also by taking into account the panel date to be fixed in this regard by the Government in the proposed amendment as directed by the Division Bench. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that, in order to clarify the said position, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Tamil nadu, in his letter No. 34030/Ser-6(1)/2019-7, dated 10.08.2020 has given the following written instructions for the perusal of this Court, the same is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

“Letter No.34030/Ser-6(1)/2019-7, Dated 10.08.2020

From

Dr.Atulya Misra, I.A.S.,

Additional Chief Secretary to Government

To

The Additional Advocate General-III of Tamil Nadu,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai (w.e) (by name cover)

Sir,

Sub: Writs- W.P.(MD) No.8467 of 2020 and batch cases – on the file of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court – Appearance of the Additional Advocate General – III of Tamil Nadu Madurai Bench of Madras High Court – Next hearing on 12.08.2020 – Report sent – Reg.

Ref: 1.Orders in W.A.(MD) No.836, 892, 974 and 1683/2018 and W.P.(MD) No.171767/2019 dated 30.08.2019.

2. From the Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, letter dated 04.08.2020.

3. Government Letter No.34030Ser.6(1)/2019-6, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 05.08.2020.

4. From the Additional Advocate General-III of Tamil Nadu, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court letter dated 07.08.2020.

.....

I am directed to invite your attention to the references cited

2. In the order first cited above, the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has ordered that the Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.836, 892, 974 and 1683 of 2018 and W.P.(MD) No.17169 of 2018 are disposed of as follows:

(a) the orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent Government to make necessary amendments to the relevant rules indicating the date of preparing the seniority list by taking note of the observations and findings rendered supra.

(b) the preparation of seniority list in this case should not go either by calendar year or by fixing 15th March as the crucial date.

(c) such seniority list is to be prepared by giving a reasonable gap between the date of preparation of such list and date of preparation of panel for promotion.

(d) the inter se seniority of the direct recruit assistants shall be fixed by strictly following the cyclical order referred to under Clause 9 of Annexure IX of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

(e) the first respondent Government thus shall pass appropriate orders making amendment to the rules as directed supra within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(f) on the basis of the orders to be passed by the first respondent Government amending the rules, the authority concerned shall prepare the subject matter seniority list afresh accordingly within a period of four weeks thereafter.

(g) the seniority list as well as panel for promotion to the next higher post shall be prepared for every year without accumulating the same for years together.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

3. Based on the above judgment, a report from the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration has been obtained in regard for amending of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services rules as ordered by the High Court for fixing of inter-se seniority between directly recruited Assistants and Promotee Assistants in the Districts Revenue Administration is under active consideration of the Government in consultation with the Advisory Departments of Law and Personnel and Administration Reforms Departments and Tamil Nadu Public Service commission as per the Business Rules and orders will be issued as early as possible. Due to abnormal pandemic situation, it is felt that some more time is very much required to take a cautious decision in this issue.

4. In this connection, I am directed to request you to appraise the above position before the Hon'ble High Court as and when the case comes up for hearing and get an adjournment for a period of four weeks in the matter.

Yours faithfully,

sd/-

for Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Copy to:

The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration

Chepauk, Chennai.

The District Collector

Dindigul/Madurai District.”

18. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that, all these temporary promotions made through the impugned orders in various districts by the respective District Collectors, are only temporary promotions strictly by invoking the provisions of Section 47(1) of the Act and 39(a(i)) of the Rules and therefore, the impugned promotion can never be construed as a regular promotion and by virtue of these temporary or adhoc promotion, no right will be conferred on any of the promotees and this has been clearly indicated in the impugned promotion order and only accepting the said conditions, since promotees have joined the promoted post, they cannot at a later point of time seek any further service benefits pursuant to the temporary promotion. He would also submit that, in view of the rule position, which are available now and the law declared by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the proposed amendment to be made in the said Rule with regard to the panel date for preparation of panel among the Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar every year as directed by the Division Bench, no right should be accrued upon any of the temporary promotees. Therefore, such temporary promotions are being operated only in order to meet the contingencies especially in the COVID-19 situation, where the revenue administration in the forefront has to coordinate all COVID-19 schemes as well as other benefits to various sectors of society brought by the Central and State Governments. Without the necessary hands in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar, the district administration would get paralysed and by virtue of that most of the schemes including the effective fight against COVID-19 would get hindered. Therefore, this temporary promotions are very much need of the hour for the smooth running of the revenue administration of the districts concerned. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Government as well as the district administration assisting the revenue administration has got every power and right to give such temporary promotions, which is available under the Act and Rules and that has been now invoked and operated by the District Collectors, while passing these temporary promotions. Therefore, those promotions are not at all required to be interfered with by this Court, he contended.

19. This elaborate submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate General have been considered by this Court, apart from the materials placed in these batch of cases by the parties through the respective counsel.

20. Insofar as the legal position, as to whether reservation has to be applied to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is concerned, both sides agreed that, the issue has already been given a quietus and therefore, there can be no controversy on that issue. However, it is the grievance of the petitioners, who are affected by virtue of these temporary promotions that, without having given effect to the reservation policy, no panel either temporary or permanent can be prepared among the Assistants to give promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and since that has been done in these cases, such temporary promotions are unlawful or against law and therefore, that has to be interfered with.

21. The other grievance of these aggrieved persons against these temporary promotions is, that the cyclical form of representation i.e., 2:1 has not been followed, despite the rule having been affirmed and reiterated by the law Courts in the judgments cited supra. Therefore, without following the cyclical form of representation, if any panel is prepared and promotions consequently is given, both are bad, that is the second limb of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/parties.

22. Thirdly, in the district of Ramanathapuram is concerned, the order passed by the District Collector is not in the form of temporary promotion by invoking Section 47(1) of the Act or Rules 39(a(i)) of the Rules, but it is a regular promotion with the wordings as 'temporary promotion', which is usually put in any such kind of orders. Therefore, such a regular promotion can never be made without the rule being amended as directed by the Division Bench and also by applying the principle of reservation as well as the cyclical form of representation between the promotees and direct recruitees.

23. These three major grievances projected by the learned counsels are concerned, this Court, after having gone through all the materials, is of the considered view that, the rule position as well as the legal position as declared by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have become final, as either the reservation issue or the cyclical form of representation is concerned, ie., 2:1 ratio, there can be no quarrel. The only issue is, without applying the rule of reservation and without following 2:1 ratio and without waiting for the amendment to be made by the State Government with regard to the panel date in the rule as directed by the Division Bench, whether the District Collectors concerned can prepare the temporary panel and consequentially can give temporary promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar.

24. In order to answer the said question, which, in fact, is the only question to be answered in these batch of cases, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents State has made a categorical statement across the Bar before this Court that, preparation of panel for promotion in these three Districts to the post of Deputy Tahsildar are only temporary in nature within the meaning of Section 47(1) of the Act and Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules.

25. For easy reference, the relevant provision of the Act as well as the rule are extracted hereunder:

Section 47(1) of the Act reads thus:

“47. Temporary Promotions. - (1) Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a higher category in a service or class by promotion from lower category and there would be undue delay in making such promotion in accordance with the provision of the Act, the appointing authority may temporarily promote a person, who possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post, otherwise than in accordance with this Act.”

26. Rule 39(a(1)) of the Rule reads thus:

“39. Temporary Promotion. - [(a)(i) Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a higher category in a service or class by promotion from lower category and there would be undue delay in making such promotion in accordance with the rules, the appointing authority may temporarily promote a person who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post, otherwise than in accordance with the rules.”

27. On a reading of the provisions of the Act as well as the Rule quoted above, it can be easily found that, both are analogous in nature and in fact rule 39(a(i)) was operating in the field before the Act come into effect and once the Act came into effect, Section 47(1) was operated to hold the field.

28. If we look at these provisions of the Act as well as the Rule, the power has been vested with the Government in case of necessity in the public interest that too owing to an emergency, which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy to a post and if there would be or likely to be an undue delay in making such promotion in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Rule, then, it is for the appointing authority to give temporary promotion to a person, who possess the qualification prescribed for the post, otherwise than in accordance with the Act or Rule.

29. The language used in the provision referred to above makes it very clear that, if the following ingredients are really available, namely, necessity should arise, public interest must be there, emergency shall prevail, with the result, a situation should have arisen to fill up the post or vacancy, where if there is a likelihood of delay in making such promotion in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Rule, in that circumstances, the appointing authority can give such temporary promotion. The only condition to be strictly followed is that, the person, who possess necessary qualification prescribed for the post, can be given temporary promotion.

30. Therefore, on the qualification aspect, there can be no compromise even in temporary promotion made due to emergency by invoking Section 47(1) of the Act and Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules. The words “otherwise than in accordance with the Act or Rules”, makes it abundantly clear that, whatever promotion is being made on temporary basis due to emergency by invoking the emergency provision of Section 47(1) of the Act and Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules is not necessarily be in accordance with the rule or law or Act, as the words “otherwise than in accordance with the Act or Rule” has clearly indicates that, such temporary promotion on emergency basis cannot be expected to be justified in the teeth of the relevant rules and regulations or provisions of the Act as to whether the panel was properly prepared and promotion was properly given.

31. Only this kind of temporary promotion due to emergency, since has been permitted under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules referred to above, whether these promotions given now, which are impugned in these writ petitions, are in such category or not can also be gone into.

32. In this context, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, who have been affected because of temporary promotion, that, there is no word mentioned in any of these order to state that, either Section 47(1) of the Act or Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rule is invoked in order to meet the contingencies or emergency, such temporary promotions are given and by merely stating that on administrative reason, that would not fill the gap that these promotions are given by only invoking the said emergency provision.

33. The said contentions made by the learned counsel in this regard cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that, when the authority or the Government states that, it is for the administrative contingencies, it can only be construed that administrative contingencies could be including any kind of emergency situation, like COVID-19, which is prevailing in the State.

34. Especially, in the district of Pudukottai, the District Collector has, in fact, requested the revenue administration to give permission or to clarify the issue whether temporary promotion can be given in view of the prevailing situation, where 38 vacancies to the post of Deputy Tahsildar are kept vacant for years together, by virtue of that, the district administration in various fronts gets affected. When such a clarification sought for on 23.09.2019, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Administration, Chennai and the Additional Chief Secretary, Chennai, by his communication dated 31.10.2019 has clarified that the District Collector is the appointing authority for Deputy Tahsildar, hence, a decision of giving temporary promotions to the eligible Assistants as Deputy Tahsildar as empowered in Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules may be taken at the level of District Collector as per the Rule in force, after taking into account the Court orders and the pending Court cases, if any.

35. When such a clarification was given in the said communication and pursuant to which, the District Collector passed an order on 01.11.2019 invoking such emergency provisions, especially under rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules and while giving promotion to 36 persons purely on temporary basis with so many conditions, the said order has been directed to be cancelled by the very same Commissioner for Revenue Administration, vide his proceedings dated 14.01.2020.

36. Though the said order dated 14.01.2020 is the subject matter under challenge in W.P.(MD) No.2848 of 2020 and the same is pending before this Court, on perusal of the said clarification earlier given by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 31.10.2019 and the subsequent directive issued to the District Collector to cancel the order by directive dated 14.01.2020, this Court feels that, the State revenue administration has not given clear guidance or direction to the district revenue administration. With the result, lot of confusions have arisen, where, the District Collector of Pudukottai was constrained to cancel the order of temporary promotion dated 01.11.2019 by subsequent order dated 05.03.2020.

37. It is to be noted that, both the order dated 01.11.2019 giving promotions for 36 persons on temporary basis and a subsequent order dated 05.03.2020, where temporary promotion given for another 36 persons were made only by invoking the emergency provisions either under Section 47(1) of the Act or rule 39(a(1)) of the Rules.

38. When 01.11.2019 itself, the order giving temporary promotions has been passed on temporary basis invoking rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules, which is analogous provision to Section 47(1) of the Act, there was no necessity to cancel such order by passing an order on 05.03.2020. However, the District Collector has passed an order on 05.03.2020, which is impugned in W.P.(MD) No.7150/2020, only because of the directive issued subsequently on 14.01.2020 by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration.

39. It is also an admitted case from the State or official respondents side that, the directions issued by the Division Bench to make an amendment to the rule has not so far been done. Though only two months time was given, even after one year, the rule is yet to be amended. After amending the Rule within two months time as indicated by the Division Bench, fresh seniority list should have been prepared by the district administration within four weeks time so that within three months time, it shall complete the task. However, even after one year, nothing has been moved from the Government. Now, the State revenue administration claims that, within four weeks time, the rule would get amended. This Court, even though is of the view that, such a delay caused by the State Government to amend the rule cannot be appreciated, has to accept such a plea now raised by the revenue administration of the State, because of the COVID-19 situation. It is also be noted that, before COVID-19 situation from September 2019 up to February or March 2020, the State Government has got enough time to make an amendment pursuant to the Division Bench order. But they have failed to do so without any plausible reason. Therefore, that inaction on the part of the Revenue administration of the State cannot be appreciated.

40. Had the State administration acted upon swiftly pursuant to the order of the Division Bench and suitable amendment were made by the time and accordingly, directives and clear guidelines have been issued to the district level administration, this type of contingencies would not have occurred and there would not have been any necessity to invoke the emergency provisions for giving temporary promotions, which are impugned herein.

41. Anyhow, now we cannot find fault with where went and how went wrong, as the respondents are facing through a difficult situation, where the COVID-19 situation is staring at everyone. When that being the position, now the district level/revenue administration must be in the forefront to compete the COVID-19 situation. That apart, as claimed by the State Government through the learned Additional Advocate General, so many welfare measures and schemes envisaged by the State and Central Governments have to be implemented and monitoring the implementation of the schemes are mainly vest with the revenue administration of the district concerned, therefore, large number of Deputy Tahsildar posts, if are kept vacant for long time, that would be detrimental to the district administration. These situations are to be taken into account, when we see the validity of the temporary promotions. As has been rightly pointed out by some of the learned counsel led by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel for the promotees/beneficiaries by way of these temporary promotions, the relevant rule has made it clear that, no such right whatever be conferred on these temporary promotees, merely because they have been given temporary promotions. In this context, rule 39(c) of the rule reads thus:

“[(c) A person temporarily promoted under sub-rule (a) shall be replaced as soon as possible by the member of the service who is entitled to the promotion under the rules.]” Like that, under the Act, sub section 3 of Section 47 reads thus:

“(3) A person temporarily promoted under sub-section (1) shall be replaced as soon as possible by the member of the service who is entitled to promotion under this Act.”

42. The provisions of the Act as well as Rule as quoted above made it very clear that, no right would be conferred on these temporary promotees and once a member of the service, who is entitled to get promotion is promoted, these temporary promotees can be replaced. In this regard, no rights whatsoever can be claimed by the temporary promotees. When that being the position, the petitioners herein, who are claimed to be affected persons because of the temporary promotions, are not losing any service benefits, merely because of these temporary promotions.

43. In otherwords, once the rule is amended pursuant to the Division Bench judgment, based on which, regular panel is prepared by applying the cyclical form of representation between the promotees and direct recruitees and accordingly, panel is prepared by taking into account the panel date to be fixed in this regard by the State Government making proposed amendments, certainly, whatever right or service benefit with regard to seniority accrued to these petitioners and similarly placed persons, who may be either in the category of promotees or in the category of direct recruitees, those benefits cannot be denied at any point of time and accordingly, the deserving/senior persons would certainly get their due share of service benefits of seniority and the consequential promotion to the next higher cadre and in this case, it is the Deputy Tahsildar.

44. Therefore, this Court, after having considered all these aspects by taking into account the emergency situation faced by the State Government, is of the considered view that, whatever temporary promotions given in these three revenue districts referred to above, which are mainly impugned in these writ petitions, are only to be considered as temporary promotions either under Section 47(1) of the Act or under Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules. Accordingly, these promotions given either in Dindigul District by order dated 14.07.2020 or at Pudukottai District, by order dated 01.11.2019 need not be interfered with.

45. Therefore, the subsequent order dated 23.07.2020 made by the Dindigul District Collector need not have been issued. Like that, the temporary promotions given by Pudukottai District Collector dated 01.11.2019 need not have been cancelled by the subsequent order of the District Collector dated 05.03.2020. Consequently, the other set of temporary promotions made by the Pudukottai District Collector dated 05.03.2020 giving another list of 36 persons promotion to Deputy Tahsildar on temporary basis is superfluous as one time temporary promotions invoking the emergency provisions already issued need not be interfered with by giving the another set of temporary promotions invoking the very same emergency situation.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

r />46. It is a settled proposition of law that one adhoc appointee cannot be replaced by another adhoc appointee. Like that one temporary promotee cannot be replaced by another temporary promotee. In the case in hand, the temporary promotion given by the order of the District Collector, dated 01.11.2019 have been cancelled by order dated 05.03.2020 by thus, the earlier temporary promotees sought to be replaced by the subsequent temporary promotees. Therefore, it is impermissible. 47. In this regard, this Court also feels that, the directives issued by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 14.01.2020 need not have been issued to cancel the promotions already given in Pudukottai District, by order dated 01.11.2019, but, at any rate, since the directive issued by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 14.01.2020 in Pudukottai District is a subject matter in W.P.(MD) No.2848/2020, this Court is not inclined to express any further view on the validity of the said directives issued on 14.01.2020. 48. Insofar as Ramanathapuram District is concerned, even though the impugned panel dated 10.03.2020 is styled as a regular promotion on temporary basis, the same shall also be treated as only a temporary panel invoking the emergency provisions, ie. Section 47(1) of the Act and Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules and all consequential promotions, if any given, which are impugned in another writ petition, ie., in W.P.(MD) No.8766/2020 shall also be equally treated as temporary promotions invoking the emergency provisions of the Act as well as the Rules referred to above. 49. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following order: (i) Dindigul District: The temporary promotions given by the District Collector, Dindigul in order dated 14.07.2020 in Na.Ka.No.9388/2020/A1 is valid and the same can be given effect to. Consequently the subsequent order made by the District Collector, Dindigul dated 23.07.2020 can be withdrawn and accordingly, a direction is given to the District Collector to withdraw the order dated 23.07.2020 which kept the order dated 14.07.2020 in abeyance. ii) Pudukottai District: * Insofar as Pudukottai District is concerned, the promotion temporarily given by order of the District Collector dated 01.11.2019 is valid. Therefore, the same can be given effect to. Consequently the order of the Pudukottai District Collector dated 05.03.2020 in Na.Ka.No. 5293/2017-1/m2 and 05.03.2020 in Na.Ka.No.5293/2017-2/m2 are liable to be quashed accordingly are quashed. * Since the order dated 05.03.2020 giving temporary promotions for another set of 36 persons has been stayed by this Court, by order dated 01.07.2020, thereby those promotees, who have been given postings in the promoted post were not permitted to be acted upon. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that no third party right pursuant to 05.03.2020 order have been created. iii) Ramanathapuram District: Insofar as Ramanathapuram District is concerned, the impugned panel dated 10.03.2020 is only to be construed as a temporary panel within the meaning of Section 47 (1) of the Act and Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules and pursuant to which, whatever promotion/temporary promotion given by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District shall also be construed only as a temporary promotion within the meaning of the said provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, by virtue of the order, dated 10.03.2020 of Ramanathapuram District Collector and consequential orders passed by him, no right would be conferred on the beneficiaries and once the regular panel is prepared and regular promotees are given promotion, such regular promotees shall immediately replace the temporary promotees, if any given, pursuant to the orders of the Ramanathapuram District Collector referred to above. iv) Apart from the aforesaid directions, it is specifically directed that, all these temporary promotions now have been declared to be valid by virtue of this order, shall only be treated as temporary panel or temporary promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the concerned revenue districts within the meaning of Section 47(1) of the Act and Rule 39(a(i)) of the Rules. Therefore, pursuant to these temporary promotions, no right would be accrued to any of the temporary promotees and all the conditions imposed in the respective promotion orders shall be strictly applicable and imposable against the promotees and beneficiaries at a later point of time. v) It is also specifically directed that, in view of the written instructions now have been given by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Tamil nadu, dated 10.08.2020, the necessary amendment as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.836/2018 etc. batch, dated 30.08.2019 shall be made within a period of four weeks, as indicated in the said written instructions, without seeking any further extension of time. vi) If the Government/revenue administration failed to comply with the order passed by the Division Bench by making the amendments indicated therein even after the four weeks time now has been sought, such failure on their part would be construed as a wilful violation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.08.2019 made in in W.A(MD) No.836/2018 etc. batch and in such circumstances, the matter would be referred to a Division Bench to take appropriate action against the erring authorities, for wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, by invoking the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is made clear that, pursuant to this order, the promotees, who have now been benefitted by way of these impugned temporary promotion orders, shall continue to hold the post of promoted category, namely, Deputy Tahsildar concerned and they shall vacate the office the moment they reverted back, when need arises, once the regular promotion is given effect to. 50. With these directions, observations and orders, all these writ petitions in this batch are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-09-2020 Yashwanth @ Yashavant Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2020 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, (Presently NLC India Limited), Rep. by its General Manager (Contracts) Corporate Office, Neyveli Versus M/s. TENOVA India Pvt. Ltd., Alwarpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Mallappa & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-09-2020 Raghavan & Another Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-09-2020 Yogesh Agarwal & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. herein by: The Investigation Officer Cyber Crime Police Station (CID), Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Rajegowda @ Guruswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Tousif Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Maharudragouda Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Ramesh Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-09-2020 Shivanand Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Dept. of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Jantra Wanida & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Yellappa Versus The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, Gadag High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-09-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Thankappan Pillai Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Mahasamy Versus Minor Prakash, Rep. By his father & natural guardian Rajendran, Tiruppur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2020 Vangamudi Kasimayan, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Anandi Versus State, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-09-2020 R. Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Makdum @ Makdum Shariff Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by HCGP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Sapna Chouhan & Another Versus State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2020 Zameer Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Kuruva Muliniti Lakshmana, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., Rep. PP. Hyd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
11-09-2020 Mukund Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 B.S. Yediyurappa Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 Shyam Investments, Rep. by its Partner Nina Reddy & Another Versus Masti Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Amarendra Bhagawati Versus The State of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy., Deptt. of Excise, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Ghy.-06 & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 A. Sudharani Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
10-09-2020 G. Chitra Poornima & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Under Secretary Revenue Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 Punitha Versus State by Turuvekere Police Turuvekere, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam Versus Janaki High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Sir Venkatramanaswamy Blue Metals, Rep by its Managing Partner, M. Sivanandam & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Karur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Natarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Municipal Admin & Water Supply, City V, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Alfadul Sobhi & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Saluvadi Sumalatha Versus The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREI-RB) rep., by its, Executive Officer (Convenor) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 F. Srilekha & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 M. Ravi & Others Versus State by Vishwanathapura P.S., Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Yedla Babulu & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (J.A & L.A), T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 Taba Tagar Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-09-2020 Kothapalli Govinda Rajulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 Meharaj @ Meharaj Begum Versus State by K.G. Halli P.S., Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Philip Stephen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Vazhuvoor Ravi Versus The State of TamilNadu, Rep.by the Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 M/s. Kaveri Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Rishabchand Bhansali Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1), Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Signatory R. Eswaran Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Shifa Khairun Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Chandan @ Abcd Chandan Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor, Benglauru High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Ponnayal & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary, Highways & Minor Ports Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s. Anish Orchardes Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director S. Bhavani & Others Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as Provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. Orchards (India) Ltd. Rep. by Administrator K. Alagiriswami & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 K.V. Sayan & Another Versus The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Kotagiri Police Station, The Nilgiris & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation Rep. by its Secretary R.V. Govinda Rao & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Mohammed Anees Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Phatik Sonowal Versus State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy. To The Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary), Gauhati & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Poornachandrakala Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-08-2020 Praveena @ Itachi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeepa Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 K. Ranga Rao & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-08-2020 M/s. Leo Activation, Division of Black Pencil Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Rep. by Its Director Versus The 49th All India Congress of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Kochi, Represented by Its Organizing Committee Chairman, Dr. V.P. Paily High Court of Kerala
26-08-2020 Muhammed Versus State of Kerala Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam Through S.H.O. Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Sree Gurudeva Charitable & Educational Trust, Kattachira, Rep. by Its General Secretary Subash Vasu & Others Versus K. Gopalakrishnan & Another High Court of Kerala
25-08-2020 Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jaikesaram, Yadadri-Bhongir District Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-08-2020 Usha Ramachandran Versus Canara Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, Anna Nagar (East) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2020 Badavath Leela Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration ((Spl.(Law & Order), Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-08-2020 TNCSC Employees Union, Affiliated with Labour Progressive Federation, Rep. by its State President, Chennai Versus Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2020 Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, R.A. Puram, rep. by its Superintending Engineer Versus M/s. VDB Projects (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras