The District Collector v. S.Ramasamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2015 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN WRIT APPEAL NOS.1950 OF 2013 AND 324 OF 2015 & M.P.NOS.1 AND 1 OF 2015 W.A.No.1950 of 2013 :
1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR NAGAPATTINAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.
2.THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NAGAPATTINAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS Vs 1.S.RAMASAMY 2.K.KARUNANIDHI 3.P.DURAIARASAN 4.J.JEEVAMBAL 5.K.VEERAMANI 6.S.PUGALENTHI 7.V.SEKAR 8.T.A.CHINNA DURAI 9.D.NAVANEETHAM 10.R.ANBUMANI 11.V.KUMAR 12.S.MILLER 13.K.RAVICHANDRAN 14.M.JAGADEESGWARA KANNAN 15.S.MANGAYARKARASI 16.G.PANDIYAN 17.A.KALAIRANI 18.V.VELPARI 19.A.ARULMOZHI 20.K.VADIVEL 21.K.KARTHIKEYAN 22.K.RAVICHANDRAN ...RESPONDENTS W.A.No.324 of 2015 :
1.THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-1 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NAGAPATTINAM.
3.THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NAGAPATTINAM.
4.THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PERSONEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT CHENNAI-9.
...APPELLANTS Vs 1.V.M.PANNER SELVAM 2.M.LAKSHMANAN 3.R.KANNADASAN 4.J.DEIVASHAYAM 5.K.VALLAVAN 6.P.ASOKAN 7.S.RAVICHANDRAN 8.V.PAKKIRISAMI 9.T.EZHILARASI 10.N.TAMILARASI 11.G.DURAI 12.N.VISWANATHAN 13.T.P.PANNEER SELVAM 14.A.PAKKIRISAMY 15.K.SEKAR 16.N.SUKUMAR 17.G.RAJAGOPAL 18.N.MARAIMANI 19.R.THAMBIRAJ 20.V.RAJENDRAN 21.T.BALASUBRAMANIAN 22.K.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 23.M.VIJAYARANI 24.R.RAMAMURTHY 25.J.NEELAYATHASHI 26.G.MARAN 27.M.MANGALESWARI 28.P.SINGARAVEL 29.S.AYYUBHKAN 30.S.GOMATHI 31.P.PARIVAENDAN 32.P.ANANDRAJ 33.P.KAMALASELVI 34.P.ANANTHI 35.N.SELVAGANAPATHI
36.C.THAVAMANI 37.P.BOOMINATHAN 38.L.SHANTHI 39.N.KALAIYARASI 40.G.PADMAVATHI 41.K.SAKTHIVEL 42.P.RAGHU 43.S.AMITHALINGAM 44.K.ALAGARASAMY 45.S.SUMATHI ...RESPONDENTS APPEALS under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against (i) the order dated 5.7.2012 made in W.P.No.18208 of 2008 Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners in a suitable post in the light of the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.26417/2003 A-3, dated 08.07.2003 by applying G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 04.07.2003 on the file of the first respondent herein. and (ii) the order dated 20.3.2012 made in W.P.No.
558 of 2005 Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Declaration declaring that the selection process conducted to the post of Junior Assistant by the 3rd respondent from among the list forwarded by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.26417/2003 A3 dated 08.07.2003 and the consequential appointment of the respondents 4 to 28 as null and void and direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioners for appointment as Junior assistant in those vacancies.
Mrs.Srijayanthi, SGP For Respondents 1 to 22 in W.A.No.1950 of 2013 :
Mr.Harris Alfred For Respondents 2, 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 to 16, 18 & 19 in W.A.No.324 of 2015 :
Mr.V.Chandrasekaran R4, R17, R22, R26, 36 & 38 :
Not ready in notice (Intimation to be given) For R1, R8, R20, 23 to 25, R27, R29 to R34, 37, 40 & 44 in W.A.No.324 of 2015 : No appearance For R12, R35, R39, R42 & R45 in W.A.No.324 of 2015 : Service awaited For R28 & R41 in W.A.No.324 of 2015 : Mr.A.Muthukumar
For R21 in W.A.No.324 of 2015 : Mr.P.Vijendran For R43 in W.A.No.324 of 2015 : M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates COMMON JUDGMENT (JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) Both these appeals are by the State, questioning the correctness of the orders passed by two different learned Judges in two different writ petitions granting relief to the contesting respondents herein.
2. Heard Mrs.Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant, Mr.V.Chandrasekaran and Mr.Harris Alfred, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents herein/writ petitioners and Mr.A. Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for those, who were the contesting respondents in one of the writ petitions.
3. From 2.7.2003 onwards, the Government servants through out the State went on a strike. Nagapattinam District was also a place where all the Government servants except Tahsildars went on strike.
4. In order to tide over the crisis, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 85 P & AR dated 4.7.2003 directing the Commissioner of Employment and Training to give suitable instructions to all Employment Exchanges to send a list of eligible candidates possessing the minimum general educational qualifications and who have registered in the respective Employment Exchanges. The list of candidates were directed to be sent to the District Collectors concerned by following the rule of reservation under General Rule 22. It is made clear in the said Government Order that 500 temporary supernumerary posts of Junior Assistants in each district were created under General Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. What is important to note is that in paragraph 2 of the said order, it was indicated that the District Collector will prepare a distinct pool in his Collectorate, from which, the appointments are to be made.
5. As per the directions given by the Government, the District Collector called for a list of persons from the Employment Exchange. The names of the contesting respondents herein and the other respondents were also sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Unfortunately, at the time when the appointments were made, the names of the contesting respondents
herein were left out. However, the other persons, who are allegedly junior in the rolls of the Employment Exchange to the contesting respondents herein, were appointed.
6. Therefore, complaining that the rule of seniority of registration and the rule of reservation were violated in the matter of appointment, one set of persons filed W.P.No.558 of 2005. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 20.3.2012 with the following directions :
"In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms :
(i) The impugned order of the second respondent, in so far as it relates to denial of posting orders to the petitioners is concerned, is set aside.
(ii) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue posting orders to the petitioners as Junior Assistants and allow them to join duty within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) The Government is directed to hold special competitive examination through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as it was done in the case of the other candidates as stated above and absorb them on permanent basis on the results of the said special competitive examination and (iv) In the event the petitioners do not emerge successful in the special competitive examination, they will be allowed to continue in service on consolidated pay like the other 26 persons who have been allowed by the Government to work in various departments."
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Tamil Nadu has come up with W.A.No.324 of 2015. In the meantime, another set of candidates, who were similarly placed as the writ petitioners in W.P.No.588 of 2005, came up with a separate writ petition in W.P.No.18208 of 2008 seeking a similar prayer. That writ petition was allowed by another learned Judge by an order dated 5.7.2012, based upon the order in W.P.No.588 of 2005. As against the order dated 5.7.2012, the District Collector, Nagapattinam came up with W.A.No.1950 of 2013.
8. In the counter filed by the Government to the first writ petition in W.P.No.588 of 2005, it was stated that the District
Employment Officer, Nagapattinam was requested to sponsor a list of 500 candidates with 155 belonging to the general category, 155 belonging to backward classes, 95 belonging to most backward classes and 95 belonging to scheduled caste, making up a total of 500. The Employment Officer appears to have given two types of lists namely non priority list and priority list from among the candidates belonging to scheduled caste, most backward classes, backward classes and open categories with reference to the cut off date taken on the basis of the date of registration in the rolls of the Employment Exchange.
9. Thereafter, the Collector appears to have given postings to persons upto S.No.356 and they were allotted to various departments. Persons, whose names were found from S.No.357 onwards, were not appointed. Thereafter, it appears that 25 persons were randomly appointed with the qualification of type writing and computer operations. It is those appointments that are assailed by the writ petitioners as violative of the rule of seniority and the rule of reservation.
10. What the learned Judge found was that when type writing and computer operations are not fixed as essential qualifications, the District Collector could not have shortlisted a few candidates by applying such a qualification.
11. But, in cases of this nature where the appointments are made (i) on temporary basis and (ii) to supernumerary posts, the rules themselves do not apply. The post of Junior Assistant is a post that falls within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Any appointment made otherwise than through a process of selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, is only an irregular appointment and can be made only under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services.
12. Therefore, the short-listing of 25 candidates on the basis of their qualification in type writing and computer operations to temporary posts created on supernumerary basis to tide over a crisis cannot be said to be arbitrary. In writ petitions of this nature, what is required to be tested is as to whether the writ petitioners had acquired a legal and vested right to seek appointment. The petitioners were only shortlisted. As we have pointed out earlier, paragraph 2 of G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 4.7.2003 makes it clear that the Collector had to prepare only general pool of 500 candidates and make appointments from the general pool to the needy departments. If that is so, we do not know as to whether the mere sponsoring of candidates by the Employment Exchange would confer a right upon the writ petitioners. In view of the above, we find that the orders of the learned Judges cannot be sustained.
13. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed and the orders of the learned Judges are set aside. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar To;
1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR NAGAPATTINAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.
2.THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NAGAPATTINAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.
3.THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, FORT, ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI.
4.THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI.
+1cc to Haris alfred, Advocate sr.59759 +1cc to The Government Pleader sr.59622 +1cc to V.Chandrasekaran, Advocate Sr.60228 W.A.Nos.1950 of 2013 & 324 of 2015 & MP.Nos.1 & 2/2015 vs[co] srg 22/12/2015