IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.04.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.20757 of 2007 and W.P.(MD)No.7633 of 2008 and connected MPs 1.K.Rajasekaran 2.G.Saraswathi 3.S.Yokeswari 4.K.Ranjini Devi 5.K.Subbiah 6.S.Gomathi ... Petitioners in W.P.N.20757/2007 1.R.Murugesan 2.C.Vaidvelu ... Petitioners in W.P.(Md)No.7633/2008 Vs 1.Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3.Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate, Pudukottai. ...Respondents 1 to 3 in both WPs 4.A.L.Sundaram 5.M.Subramanian 6.R.Tamil Selvan 7.V.Rangasamy 8.P.Mathialagan 9.T.Kulandai Theresa ... Respondents 4 to 9 in W.P.No.20757/2007 10.S.Gurunathan 11.K.Rajanidevi 12.M.Kalaimathi 13.K.Rajasekaran 14.G.Saraswathi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.S.Yogeswari. ... Respondents 4 to 9 in W.P.(Md)No.7633 of 2008 W.P.No.20757/2007 PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st to 3rd Respondents relating to the order of the 3rd Respondent bearing Na.Ka.4052/07 (A14) dt. 12.06.2007 reverting the Petitioners to the post of Draughtsman in so far as the Petitioners herein are concerned and the consequent orders of the 3rd Respondent herein bearing Na.Ka.4052/07 (A14) (2) and Na.Ka.4052/07 (A14) (4) dt. 12.06.2007 under which Respondents 4 to 9 herein have been promoted as against the posts from which the petitioners herein have been reverted, in so far as respondents 4 to 9 herein are concerned and quash the same. W.P.No.7633/2008 PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records viz the order dated 28.07.2008 in Na.Ka.A.14.4052/2007 (29) order dated 28.07.2008 in Na.Ka.A14.4052/2007 (30) and order dated 28.07.2008 in Na.Ka.A14.4052/2007 of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to promote the petitioners herein as Land Revenue Draughtsman/Sr.Draughtsman. (prayer amended as per order dated 25.02.2010 by KCJ in M.P.No.1/2009 in WP(MD)No.7633/2008) For petitioners : Mr.V.Prakash,S.C. For Ms.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan in both WPs For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian,A.G.P. For R1 to R3 (both Wps) W.P.No.20757/2007: Mr.M.Ravi for R5 Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan,S.C. For Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi for R6 to R9 W.P.No.7633/2008 :Mr.R.Manisankar for R4, R5, R7 to R9 C O M M O N O R D E R These matters came to be listed before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 19.12.2008. However, they came to be listed by the Registry only after 1 ½ years. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard the arguments of V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel leading Ms.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitions, Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 in both writ petitions, Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel leading A.L.Gandhimathi, counsel for respondents R6 to R9 in W.P.No.20757 of 2007 and Mr.R.Manisankar, learned counsel for Respondents 4, 5 and 7 to 9 in W.P.(Md)No.7633 of 2008. 3. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.20757/2007), the 6 petitioners had challenged the order dated 12.06.2007 reverting them from the post of Draughtsman in so far as the petitioners are concerned and also for a consequential order by the third respondent viz.,Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Pudukottai under which respondents 4 to 9 were promoted as against the post from which they were reverted and after setting aside these orders to give appropriate directions. 4. When the matter came up on 15.06.2007, notice was taken by the learned Special Government Pleader and an interim stay was granted till 27.06.2007. Subsequently, the interim stay was vacated on 31.07.2007. 5. In the meanwhile, two other petitioners moved a writ petition before the Madurai Bench being W.P.(Md)No.7633 of 2008 seeking to challenge the order dated 28.07.2008, wherein by which they were sought to be reverted to the lower post of Draughtsman. When the writ petition came up on 21.08.2008, notice of motion was ordered and an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the interim stay was made absolute. Since the matter related to the case pending before this bench, that WP was drawn from the Madurai Bench and directed to be listed with the earlier writ petition. 6. The case of the petitioners in the first writ petition was that the first, second, third and fifth petitioners were Senior Draughtsmen in the Survey and Land Records Department and fourth and sixth petitioners were Draughtsmen in the Land Records Department. They joined the service during the year 1983 being sponsored by the Employment Exchange under the Updating Registry Scheme (UDR Scheme). They were initially paid on consolidated basis and thereafter brought under time scale of pay. The provisional list of seniority of the Surveyors and the Draughtsmen working in the Pudukottai District was prepared on the basis of merit and was published on 01.07.1985 and the final seniority list was published on 10.01.1986. 7. It was further stated that during 1990, some Surveyors/Draughtsmen who were juniors to the petitioners challenged the 1986 seniority list before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1330 and 2434 of 1990. The Tribunal by a common order dated 29.09.1992 set aside the seniority list. A review application in R.A.Nos.143 and 144 of 1992 was also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rejected. Based upon the order of the Tribunal, a revised seniority list was issued on 16.08.1995 purporting to follow the direction given by the Tribunal. 8. The said revised seniority list was once again challenged before the Tribunal in O.A.No.5639 of 1995. In that OA the Tribunal gave liberty to the aggrieved individuals to raise objections before the Assistant Director of Land Records, Pudukottai who was also directed to give opportunity of hearing and thereafter to finalise the seniority list. But in violation of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Assistant Director had issued a final revised seniority list on 20.12.1995. Once again applications were filed before the Tribunal, challenging the said order as well as the consequential reversion order. 9. It was claimed by the petitioners that they were sought to be brought to posts carrying consolidated pay after having worked in time scale posts for several years. But their duties and responsibilities would continue to remain the same. Without prejudice to their applications challenging the said revised seniority list and consequent reversion orders, the petitioners also filed original applications seeking that the respondents be directed not to alter their pay from time scale to consolidated pay. The petitioners also sought for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from reducing their pay from the time scale to consolidated pay pending disposal of the original applications and an interim order was granted by this Court. 10. However, in order to give effect to the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent viz, the Director of Survey and Settlement by proceedings dated 15.07.1998 accommodated the petitioners against equivalent posts in Salem District which were handed over to the Pudukottai District. Therefore, they were given the benefit of pay protection during the pendency of the OA before the Tribunal. 11. During the pendency of the OA, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.374 Revenue Department dated 13.06.2006 regularising the services of the second, third and sixth petitioners in time scale of pay with retrospective effect and by G.O.Ms.No.851 dated 23.05.1990 had regularised the services of first and fourth petitioners with effect from the respective dates on which they were brought on time scale of pay. The fifth petitioner was also regularised by G.O.Ms.No.626 of 1990. 12. The OAs filed by the petitioners were transferred to this Court and were re-numbered as writ petitions. This Court by a common order closed the writ petitions on the basis that the relief prayed by the petitioners were granted by G.O.Ms.No.374 dated 13.06.2006 and by the proceedings of the Assistant Director dated 25.09.2006. Similarly, the third petitioner S.Yogeswari was covered by an order passed by this Court dated 22.01.2007 in W.P.Nos.27767 and 27768 of 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records by a letter dated 22.02.2007 sought for a clarification from the Director of Survey and Settlements as to whether any increment should be given to the petitioners. This clarification was limited with reference to seeking information regarding sanction of increment only. The Director by a letter dated 27.04.2007 stated that increments can be given to the petitioners without seeking any further clarification. It was thereafter, the Assistant Director by an order dated 12.06.2007 reverted the petitioners to the post of Draughtsman from the post of Land Records Draughtsman and some of them were reverted from the post of Senior Draughtsman to the post of Draughtsman by a two stage demotion. The said reversion order came to be issued on the basis of the seniority list dated 20.12.1995 as well as the clarification issued by the second respondent dated 27.04.2007. On the very same day by an order dated 12.06.2007, the contesting respondents were promoted to the post of Land Records Draughtsmen and Senior Draughtsmen. It is this order which is under challenging before this Court. 14. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents dated 16.04.2009, it was claimed that as against the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1330 of 1990 and 2434 of 1990, the same was taken to the Supreme Court by the State. The Supreme Court did not condone the delay in filing the Special Leave petition and the SLP was rejected. Therefore, instructions were issued to revise the seniority list dated 10.01.1986 issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Pudukottai, on the basis of the joining date of the candidates. Thereafter, the Assistant Director issued fresh notice and after receiving objections finalised the seniority list on 20.12.1995. 15. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows: "7. ... Due to the final orders issued by the Honourable High Court in the pending cases mentioned above the second respondent instructed the third respondent to prepare the panels for the posts of Land Records Draftsman and Senior Draftsman from the year 1987 based on the revised seniority list. The third respondent released the fresh revised seniority list based on their dates of joining in the consolidated pay Surveyor/Draftsman and date of birth in his Proc.Rc.A14/4052/07 dated 10.07.2008 and panels for the post of Land Records Draftsman and Senior Draftsman from the year 1987 to 2008 in his Proc. No.Rc.A14/4052/2007 dated 28.07.2008. The panels were prepared based on the dates of regularisation, declaration of probation and passing of Department tests etc. in the respective cadres. The details are given below:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No Name Petitioners in W.P.20757/2007 Dt.of joining in Con.pay Dt.of joining in time scale Draftsman Seniority No in Draftsman (revised list) Land Records Draftsman Year of Panel- Sl.No. Senior Draftsman Year of panel- Sl.No. P1 1 K.Rajasekaran 17.04.83 18.07.88 27 1991-1 1993-1 P2 2 G.Saraswathi 17.04.83 23.02.91 31 1994-5 1995-1 P3 3 S.Yokeswari 17.04.83 01.02.89 34 1992-1 1998-1 P4 4 K.Ranjani Devi 17.04.83 20.07.88 33 1991-2 Not eligible 5 K.Subbaiah 18.04.83 20.07.88 36 Not eligible* Not eligible* P5 6 S.Gomathi 18.04.83 05.08.91 38 1994-7 2008-1 7 A.L.Sundaram 17.04.83 20.04.96 4 1998-4 2008-2 8 M.Subramanian 17.04.83 20.04.96 6 1998-6 2008-3 9 R.Tamilsevam 17.04.83 20.04.96 15 1998-9 2003-1# 10 V.Rangaswamy 17.04.83 05.10.94 19 1997-4 Not reached $ 11 P.Mathiyalagan 17.04.83 16.05.96 16 1999-4 2000-4# 12 T.Kulandai Therasa 17.04.83 14.05.96 17 1999-5 2000-5# Ptrs in W.P. (Md) 7633/0 8 13 R.Murugesan 17.04.83 12.06.96 22 Not reached $ Not reached $ 14 C.Vadivelu 17.04.83 11.06.96 23 Not reached $ Not reached $ *Thiru K.Subbaiah has passed the department test after five years from the date of regularisation. Hence extension of probation proposals sent to the Government. Pending orders he is continuing in the post of Senior Draftsman. #Thiru R.Tamil Selvan joined in the post of Senior draftsman on 16.6.2007 #Thiru P.Mathialagan joined in the post of Senior draftsman on 12.06.2007 #Thiru T.Kulandai Therasa joined in the post of Senior Draftsman on 12.6.2007 $ Even though qualified, not reached the panel for want of vacancy." 16. In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent M.Subramanian, in paragraph 9, it was averred as follows:- "9. I respectfully submit that since the seniority list dated 20.12.1995 has not been set-aside and has become final, the petitioners herein were absorbed in the post which were transferred from other districts and now since the posts were surrendered to the respective districts and the seniority list was given effect to, the respondents 4 to 8 who are seniors than the petitioners, were placed in the promoted posts. The impugned proceedings of the third respondent is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correct and in accordance with the seniority list dated 20.12.1995. Since the petitioners herein who are juniors, could only be placed in the reverted post, they were reverted to the present post. The impugned proceedings are neither illegal, nor violative of the petitioners' right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I respectfully submit that the petitioners were already given pay protection in their respective posts. Since the seniority list dated 20.12.1995 which was not implemented till date due to pending Original Applications; it has been given effect to after the disposal of the writ petition on 22.1.2007; the action of the third respondent is correct and in accordance with law. I respectfully submit, persons who were appointed as Surveyors-cum-Draftsmen as early as in the year 1983 and who are seniors to the petitioners herein as per the seniority list dated 20.12.1995, they were promoted and also joined in service on 12.06.2007 even before the interim stay was granted. However, in view of the interim stay of reversion granted by this Hon'ble Court on 15.06.2007, the Respondents 1 to 3 herein are again trying to revert and place the petitioners in our posts." 17. In W.P.(Md)No.7633 of 2008, the challenge is made to their reversion to the post of Draughtsmen by the impugned order dated 28.07.2008. The said order came to be issued only because of the interim stay granted in W.P.No.20757 of 2007 and a contempt application was filed for non-implementation of the said order. Therefore, in order to give effect to the interim order, the reversion order came to be passed. 18. In the counter affidavit filed in that writ petition by the official respondents, it was stated that pursuant to the reversion order, the two petitioners have joined in the reverted post. Therefore, the stay should be vacated. It was also claimed that the regular panel for the year 1987 to 2007 were drawn and published and those petitioners name were not found place. 19. In the light of the above, it has to be seen whether the petitioners had made out any case for sustaining W.P.No.20757 of 2007. Though all the petitioners and respondents had joined on 17.04.1983 on a consolidated pay, but with reference to their date of joining in time scale of pay was a different date and seniority was assigned to them as per the orders passed by the Tribunal. It was stated that since the order of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1330 and 2434 of 1990 as well as Review Application became final and due to the belated filing of the appeal before the Supreme Court became abortive, a revised seniority list was issued on the basis of date of joining. Thereafter fresh notice was issued to the individuals and after receiving their objections, a final list of seniority was prepared on 20.12.1995. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20. This Court do not find any infirmity in the seniority list prepared and which was operated by the Department. The attempt made by the petitioners to challenge the seniority list and the consequential demotion cannot be countenanced by this Court. 21. In the light of the same, W.P.No.20757 of 2007 will stand dismissed. As can be seen from the Para 15, the two petitioners were not in the panel. Hence, the petitioners in W.P.(Md)No.7633 of 2008 will have to face their reversion. Hence, W.P.(Md) No.7633 of 2008 will also stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. svki To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3.Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate, Pudukottai. + 1 cc to M/S.A.L.Gandhimathi, Advocate Sr 24035 + 1 cc to M/S.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, Advocate Sr 24805 + 1 cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate Sr 24391 + 1 cc to The Govt., Pleader Sr 24274 order in W.P.No.20757 of 2007 and W.P.(MD)No.7633 of 2008 RJ (CO) RH (19/1/10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/