IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 10-09-2005 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM Writ Petition Nos. 19387 of 1998, 27173, 27174 of 2003, 21663, 21664 of 2004 and 5303 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos. 3875 of 2004, 4007 and 5859 of 2005. W.P.No. 19387/1998 1. S. Jacob, 2. S. Manoharan, 3. Syed Humayun, 4. W. Sirajunnisha. .. Petitioners. Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai-600 009. 2. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3. S. Narayanasamy. 4. S. Govindan, 5. S. Maruthanayagam, 6. K.S. Paramasivam, 7. S. Ganapathy Sivasubramaniam, 8. S. Gopal, 9. S. Muthusamy, 10. T.S. Mohan, 11. G. Syed Kudhradulla, 12. A.K. Neelaram, 13. P.G. Shanmugam, 14. V. Erulappan, 15. G. Boopalan, 16. K. Ponnusamy, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. K. Murugesan, 18. K. Ramasamy, 19. T. Parivel, 20. A. Dhandapani, 21. S. Sethuraman, 22. M. Ali Akbar, 23. T. Shanmugiah, 24. S. Swamythevar, 25. C. Ramu, 26. A. Mani, 27. R. Sundaram, 28. N. Feroz Nawazhkhan, 29. G. Ramalingam, 30. S. Dharmarajan, 31. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104. ...Respondents Writ Petition (W.P.No.19387/98) is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in R.A.No. 52/98 in O.A.No. 2113/95 dated 6- 8-98 confirming the order in O.A.No. 2113/95 dated 26-2-1997 and quash the same. W.P.27173/2003 1.The Secretary to Govt.of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort ST. George, Chennai-9 2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1.S.Narayanasamy 2.S.Govindan 3.S.Maruthanayagam 4.K.S.Paramasivam 5.S.Ganapathy Sivasubramaniam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.S.Gopal 7.S.Muthuswamy 8.T.S.Mohan 9.S.Syed Kudhradulla 10.A.K.Nilaram 11.P.G.Shanmugam 12.N.Irulappan 13.G.Boopalan 14.K.Ponnusamy 15.K.Murugesan 16.K.Ramasamy 17.T.Parivel 18.A.Dhandapani 19.S.Sethuraman 20.Ali Akbar 21.T.Shanmugaiah 22.S.Swamy Thevar 23.C.Ramu 24.A. Mani 25.R.Sundaram 26.N.Ferox Nawaz Khan 27.G.Ramalingam 28.S.Dharmarajan 29.S.Jacob https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 30.S.Manoharan 31.Syed Humayun 32.W.Sirajunisa 33.M.Rathinasamy 34.K.K.Anbalagan 35.N.S.Kalimuthu 36.V.Viswanathan 37.P.Pandiyarajan 38.S.Paravathavarthini 39.C.Munisamy (R3 to R39 impleaded as per order of this Court dt. 9.2.04 in W.P.M.P.47633/03) 40.B.Muthuramalingam 41.R.Kadhirvelu 42.P.Manoharan (R40 to R42 impleaded as per order of this Court dt. 7.7.04 in W.P.M.P.20003/04 ) ..Respondents W.P.No.27174 of 2003 1.The Commissioner and Secretary, to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George Chennai-9 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 ..Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -Vs- 1.S.Kannan 2.C.Kaliaperumal 3.V.S.Seshadri 4. S.Md.Ismail 5. D.Sreedharan 6. V.Ramu 7. P.Sundara Raj 8. A.Mani 9. R.Sundaram. 10.N.Feroz Nawaz Khan 11.G.Ramalingam. 12.S.Dharmarajan 13.S.Gunasekaran 14.S.Viswanathan 15.V.Somasundaram. 16.T.Shanmugaiah 17.S.Swami Thevar 18.P.Selvaraj 19.K.Kalaiselvan 20.S.Sethuraman 21.S.Manoharan 22.S.Elangovan 23.B.Muthuramalingam 24.R.Kadhirvelu 25.P.Manoharan Respondents 23 to 25 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 7.7.2004 in WPMP.20267/2004 Prayer in WP.No.27173/2003 and WP.No.27174/2003: Writ Petitions WP.Nos.27173/2003 and 27174/2003 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal dated 26.2.1999 made in O.A.No.2113 of 1995 and O.A.No.5710 of 1992 respectively and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.21663/2004 and WP.No.21664/2004: 1. M.Prabakaran 2. P.K.Periyathambi 3. G.Sampath ..Petitioners in both WP.No.21663/2004 and 21664/2004 Vs. 1. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai-9. 3. The Collector, Collectorate, Namakkal, Namakkal District. ..Respondents in both WP.Nos.21663/2004 and 21664/2004 4. S.Palani 5. S.Kadhirvelu 6. L.Kaliannan ..Respondents in WP.No.21664/2004 Prayer in WPs.21663/04 and 21664/2004 Writ Petitions WP 21663/04 and 21664/04 are filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Order of the third respondent bearing No.Na.Ka.No.9375/2004/A3 and No.Na.Ka 9375/2004/A2 dated 30.6.2004 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to restore the petitioner's seniority as Tahsildars. WP No.5303 of 2005 1. T.Mohan Das 2. M.Mariadoss 3. R.Balasubramaniam 4. K.Chandra Sekaran 5. P.Subramanian .. Petitioner -Vs- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. By its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai-5 3. The District collector of Coimbatore at Coimbatore 4. R.Kadirvelu 5. P.Selvaraj 6. P.Manoharan 7. B.Muthuramalingam .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner promoting any person, more particularly the respondents 4 to 7 without first considering the claim of the petitioner who are admitted seniors in the Assistant Cadre, to the post of Tahsildar under the Control of 3rd respondent (Revenu Unit) Mr. C. Selvaraju, Senior counsel for Mr. S. Kamadevan:- For Petitioner in W.P. No. 19387/98 and for Respondents 29 to 32 in W.P.No. 27173/2003. Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Mr. S. Sirinivasan, Govt., Advocate: For Petitioner in W.P.Nos. 27173, 27174/2003 and for Respondents in W.P.No.21663/2004 and for Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No. 21664/2004 and in W.P.No. 5303/2005. Mrs. G. Devi:- For petitioner in W.P.Nos. 21663, 21664/2004 and for Respondents 12, 20, 26, 27 in W.P.No. 27173/2003 and for Respondents 9,13,18,22 in W.P.No. 27174/2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr. L. Chandrakumar:- For Petitioner in W.P.No. 5303/2005. Mr. S. Rajarathinam:- For R-24 in W.P.27173/2003 Mr. R. Singaravelan:- For R-33 to R-39 in W.P.No. 27173/2003, and for R-4 to R-6 in W.P.No. 21664/2004. Mr. V.K. Muthusamy, senior counsel for Mr. K. Kalyanasundaram:- For R-40 to 42 in W.P.No. 27173/2003; R-23 to 25 in W.P.No.27174/2003; and R-7 in W.P.No. 5303/2005. No appearance for Respondents 1 to 30 in W.P.No. 19387/98; for Respondents 1 to 11, 13 to 19, 21 to 23 and 25 in W.P.No. 27173/2003; for Respondents 1 to 7, 10 to 12, 14 to 17, 19 to 21 in W.P.No. 27174/2003; and for Respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.No. 5303/2005. COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,) Since the issues in these writ petitions are inter- linked, they are being disposed of by the following Common Order. 2. Direct recruit Assistants in Madras City Revenue Establishment have preferred O.A.No. 204/91 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104 praying for a direction to the Government-Revenue Department, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration and the Collector of Madras to consider and promote them to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildars from the date on which they completed five years of service as direct recruit Assistants and placing them above 1983 panel of Deputy Tahsildars and giving them service benefits. 3. The applicants in O.A.No. 5710/1992 on the file of the same Tribunal, who joined in Revenue Department as Junior Assistants and were later promoted as Assistants, have prayed for quashing G.O.Ms.No. 884, Revenue Department, dated 12-8-1992 ("Government Order of 1992" in short) and the consequential G.O.Ms.No. 133, Revenue Department dated 7-2-1995 ("Government Order of 1995" in short). In the Government Order of 1992, it was stated inter alia that qualified direct recruit Assistants in the District Revenue Establishment could be considered for inclusion in Deputy Tahsildar list after completion of five years of service and placed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the top of the list, below the carried over vacancies, and above promotee Assistants and the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration was directed to send necessary draft amendment to the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Services. In the G.O. of 1995 necessary amendments were made to Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. 4. The applicants in O.A.No. 2113/1995, who joined the Revenue Department as Junior Assistants and were later promoted as Assistants/Deputy Tahsildars, have prayed for quashing the G.O. of the year 1992 and the G.O. of 1995, and directing the respondents to promote them as per inter se seniority between the promotee Assistants and direct recruit Assistants. 5. By the impugned common order dated 28-02-1997, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, after finding that the amendments made to Annexure-III (ii) by the Government Order of 1995 which provide for preferential treatment for direct recruit Assistants for promotion as Deputy Tahsildars suffer from the infirmity that these are repugnant to Rule 11 in Annexure-IX of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and Rule 5 (f) of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules and deprive promoted Assistants of their vested rights, allowed O.A.Nos. 5710/92 and 2113/95 and set aside G.O.Ms.No. 884, Revenue Department dated 12-8-1992 and G.O.Ms.No. 133, Revenue Department, dated 7-2-1995; and dismissed O.A.No. 204/91. Questioning the said order, the unsuccessful parties including the State Government preferred Writ Petition Nos. 19387/1998, 27173/2003, 27174/2003, 21663 and 21664/2004. 6. One T. Mohan Das and four others have preferred W.P.No. 5303/2005 praying for a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing respondents 1 to 3 in any manner promoting any person, more particularly respondents 4 to 7, without first considering the claim of the petitioners who are admitted seniors in the Assistant cadre, to the post of Tahsildar, under the control of third respondent (Revenue Unit). 7. The post of Assistant in the Revenue Department is governed by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. The said post is filled by two sources, one by direct recruitment and other by promotion from Junior Assistants. The post of Deputy Tahsildar is governed by Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules as per which the said post of Deputy Tahsildar is filled by recruitment by transfer from the post of Assistants in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, Office of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration (CRA), Office of the Commissioner of Land Administration, Secretariat etc. By G.O.Ms.No. 884 Revenue Department dated 12-8-1992, orders were issued to give preference to the directly recruited Assistants in the Ministerial Services by placing the selected Assistants on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ top of the list for the appointment as Deputy Tahsildar, which is borne by Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. G.O.Ms.No. 133 Revenue Department dated 07-02-1995 was issued amending the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules to give effect to the decision of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 884 Revenue Department dated 12-08-1992. The promotee Assistants filed Original Applications as referred above before the Administrative Tribunal to quash the said orders. The Tribunal has allowed their Original Applications and quashed the above said Government Orders as vitiated on the following three grounds: (a) It is inconsistent with Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. (b) It is inconsistent with Rule 5 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. (c) It is bad for giving retrospective effect with effect from 1978 as it affects vested right. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, initially they filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which initially entertained the same and passed interim orders, subsequently, directed the State to go before the High Court which necessitated them to file W.P.Nos. 27173 and 27174 of 2003. 8. The particulars furnished by the Government and the contesting parties would show the following historical facts of the case. According to the Government, from 1937 (if not earlier), the post of Probationary Revenue Inspector was a category in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services Rules. The said Rules provided for the qualifications, method of recruitment, training etc., in respect of the above post. Persons selected by direct recruitment as Probationary Revenue Inspectors were to undergo a training and given postings in various positions in terms of the said Rules. The Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, then in force, provided for two categories of posts viz., Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars. The post of Deputy Tahsildar was to be filled by transfer from various categories of posts including the probationary Revenue Inspectors. So far as the category of Probationary Revenue Inspector is concerned, once such a person completes the training and is found fit for selection as Deputy Tahsildar, the Rules provided that the selected Probationary Revenue Inspector will be placed on top of the list of Deputy Tahsildars both in the City and the District list. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thus, preferential treatment was given for several decades in favour of the Probationary Revenue Inspectors, which was a category in the Ministerial Service. 9. In 1964, the post of probationary Revenue Inspector was re-designated as Upper Division Clerk and later came to be re- designated as probationary Assistants. The qualification, method of selection, training etc., for these posts were the same as that of Probationary Revenue Inspectors. However, the Revenue Subordinate Service Rules which dealt with the post of Probationary Revenue Inspectors, was not correspondingly amended so as to substitute the post of Upper Division Clerk or Probationary Assistants. It is in these circumstances that there were certain disputes in certain cases result in the Government reviewing the matter in 1978 and taking a decision to make appropriate amendments. Although such a decision was taken by the Government in the year 1978, it took a long time for appropriate orders to be issued which ultimately culminated in G.O.Ms.No.884 Revenue Department dated 12-8-1992 followed by the statutory amendment in G.O.Ms.No. 133, Revenue Department dated 07-02-1995 resulting in preferential treatment in favour of the Probationary Assistants, who were earlier called as Probationary Revenue Inspectors. The comparative statements in respect of Selection category of posts (Rule 5) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and the Revenue Subordinate Service Rules in respect of Category I and II (Rule 5 (f) are extracted hereunder: TAMIL NADU MINISTERIAL SERVICE RULES Selection Category of Posts (Rule 5) | | | | ______________________________ Promotion with By __| | reference to Promotion | |__ Rule 10 & 11 | | 38 (b) (ii) | | Promotee Directly Recruited Assistants Assistants | By __ | 1. Special Rule 38(b)(ii) Promotion | 2. At the maximum 1/3 of | Total Assistant vacancy Junior Assistant as per Rule 9 | | 3. Selection by TNPSC under | combined Subordinate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ | Services-Minimum degree | standard. __________________________ | | | | | TNPSC Peon Compa- VAOs Typist under and ssionate Group Record ground IV Clerk SSLC. Etc. TAMIL NADU REVENUE SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES TAHSILDAR [Category 1 5(f)] | | By Promotion | (Seniority referred in | 5(f) applies) | DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (Category II 5(f) | Recruitment by Transfer | (Seniority referred in | 5(f) not applies) | | | _________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Promo Direct Assistant Assistant Assis- Assis- Assis- tee Assis- in in tant in tant in tant Assis- tant O/o CRA O/o O/o Secre- O/o tant & and Land CLA tariat CCS Selec- Select- Reforms tion tion Cate- Cate- gory gory Posts Posts 10. As discussed earlier, the grounds referred to in the order of the Tribunal is that the amendment effected in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules as inconsistent with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and Rule 5 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. Before considering the said question, let us consider the relevant rules. Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules may be relevant which are extracted below: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rule 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.. Persons appointed by promotion vacancies (b) Third .. Persons appointed by direct vacancy recruitment. (c) Fourth and .. Persons appointed by promotion fifth vacancies (d) Sixth vacancy.. Persons appointed by direct recruitment. Rule 10 Consistent with his seniority, a directly recruited Assistant shall be eligible for promotion to any selection category posts, provided he has put in one year service in the Collector's office after he has completed the period of training as Firka Revenue Inspector and has also passed the tests, prescribed. Rule 11. For every such person, there shall be reserved a substantive vacancy arising in the permanent cadre of the category of Assistants in the Revenue department in the District concerned after his appointment. His appointment to a substantive vacancy shall not however, confer on him any preferential claims to promotion." Rule 5 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules provides for "....The selecting authority to arrange the names of the persons selected by it for appointment as Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, as the case may be, in the order of the preference decided by it, which shall be based on merits, ability and seniority". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rule 5 (f) of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules specifies the method of recruitment by transfer to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and the promotion to the post of Tahsildar. Tahsildar, which is included in category 1, is a promotional post. Here, undoubtedly the principle of seniority is applied. But the second category post viz., Deputy Tahsildar is recruited by the method of transfer from almost seven sources namely, a. Promotee Assistants. b. Directly recruited Assistants. c. Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. d. Assistant in the Office of the Land Reforms. e. Assistant in the Office of the Land Adminis- tration. f. Assistant in the Secretariat. g. Assistant in the Office of the Civil Supplies. 11. Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, submitted that in view of the different sources of recruitment, it cannot be said that the principle of seniority could be made applicable to the recruitment of Deputy Tahsildar. The principles of seniority is applicable within the category and post. The particulars furnished would show that among the selected candidates, the direct recruitment Assistants, who are found fit to be appointed as Deputy Tahsildar, will be placed on top of the list. According to him, this provision is, therefore, in no way opposed to Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules or Rule 5 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. 12. It is not in dispute that the minimum educational qualification for the directly recruited Assistants through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in Group II Service is Graduation. It is the grievance of the directly recruited Assistants that direct recruitments are made once in blue moon and whereas in the department promotions are given immediately now and then as Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant. As a result of the same, the directly recruits on merit selection with degree were unable to get further promotion and number of people was not even able to reach the Tahsildar post till their retirement. As discussed earlier, originally there was no post of direct recruitment of Assistant with degree, whereas Probationary Revenue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Inspectors were in vogue at least from 1911. Then onwards there was one line of promotee Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistants and there was no direct recruitment of Assistants and they will be further promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. It is the grievance of the directly recruited Assistants that in the ladder of promotion, there was no chance of inducting a person on merit basis of graduation obviously for the reason that in those days graduates may not be available. Later on, on seeing the availability of graduates, they introduced a post called Probationary Revenue Inspector. The Probationary Revenue Inspectors were also, considering their graduation and other qualification, made eligible to become Deputy Tahsildars on completion of three years. Even while making them to become eligible as Deputy Tahsildar after merit selection, the directly recruited Probationary Revenue Inspectors will be placed first in the list. Even the said provision was deleted in 1977. It is further seen that by replacing the post of Probationary Revenue Inspector, the then Upper Division Clerk, presently Assistant posts through direct recruitment was introduced in G.O.Ms.No. 90 Revenue Department dated 8-01-1962 and rules were amended in G.O.Ms.No. 2813 Revenue dated 01-12-1964 and the post of Probationary Revenue Inspector came to be deleted in 1977. It is also the grievance of the directly recruited Assistants that there was no promotional opportunity for them. It is also their claim that when hundreds of vacancies of Assistants are filled up by promotion, one or two vacancies alone will be filled up by direct recruitment, which resulted in, rule 9 inoperative. Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned senior counsel, has also brought to our notice that out of 6000 Assistants throughout the State as on date in various Districts, only about 300 directly recruited Assistants are working. Based on the representation sent to the Board of Revenue and the Government, the Government, after accepting the proposal of the Board of Revenue, ultimately, issued order in G.O.Ms.No. 884, Revenue Department, dated 12-8-1992. 13. On going through the amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No. 133, Revenue Department, dated 7-2-1995 with effect from 4-12-1978 the date on which proposal draft amendment was sought by the Government from the Board of Revenue, we are of the view that the Tribunal without considering the scope of challenge to the Rule, struck down the amendment and allowed the Original Applications on the ground that the amendment is against Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and Rule 5 (f) of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. It is not in dispute that the impugned amendment has been issued to the Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. The Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules are different from Subordinate Service Rules. There cannot be any comparison between the Ministerial posts and subordinate service officer posts. Similarly, there is no repugnance of Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. As rightly pointed out, a reading of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above Rule makes it clear that it curtails promotion in the Ministerial ladder. Recruitment by transfer is appointment to other service Officers cadre/Deputy Tahsildar on the basis of merit, ability and seniority. Select list has to be prepared not only from the members of the Ministerial Service i.e., Assistants, but also from the members of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service, Board of Revenue, Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Director of Survey and Settlement, Director of Rehabilitation, Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Tax. As rightly pointed out, it is not as if seniority will be marching over. After merit selection, among the group of Assistants, selected from Revenue Department, preference will be given to the graduates i.e., directly recruited Assistants. We are satisfied that the impugned amendment is only placement at the top of the list among the Assistants selected on merit basis in the Revenue Department. A person in the zone of consideration will not be placed at the top merely because he is directly recruited Assistant and he must march over on merit and on getting the name included in the list, he will be placed as No.1. Therefore, there is no repugnance to rule 5 (f) of Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. 14. Coming to the challenge relating to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, there is no classification nor case because the contesting parties are not coming in the same category. They are non graduate promotee Assistants and others are all graduates directly recruited Assistants. The Courts have repeatedly held that there can be preferential treatment to one group and it is sufficient if there is any basis for such preferential treatment. In T.R. KOTHANDARAMAN v. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BD, reported in 1994 AIR SCW 4367, the Supreme Court has held as follows: (para 16 and 22) "16. From what has been stated above, the following legal propositions emerge regarding educational qualification being a basis of classification relating to promotion in public service:- (1) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. (2) Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion. (3) Restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously jeopardizing the chances of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion. To decide this, the extent of restriction shall have also to be looked into to ascertain whether it is reasonable. Reasons for this are being indicated later. 22......higher educational qualification has relevance in so far as the holding of higher promotional post is concerned, in view of the nature of the functions and duties attached to that post. The classification has, therefore, nexus with the object to be