IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 1.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.37719 of 2006 S.Dhanalingam, Deputy Collector/Manager Administration-I, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10. ... Applicant -Vs.- 1.The State of Tamilnadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue (Service-1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. ... Respondents Original Application No.8537 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for records of the first respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings G.O.(1D) No.388 Revenue (Service 1) Department dated 31.8.1998 and quash the same and direct the respondents to include the applicant in the list of Tahsildars for the year 1993 and consequently place him in the list of Deputy Collector and the list of District Revenue Officer and consequently promote him to the post of District Revenue Officer with effect from the date of promotion given to his juniors with all monetary and service benefits by issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. Since the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan For respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugham, Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Original Application No.8537 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for records of the first respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings G.O.(1D) No.388 Revenue (Service 1) Department dated 31.8.1998 and quash the same and direct the respondents to include the applicant in the list of Tahsildars for the year 1993 and consequently place him in the list of Deputy Collector and the list of District Revenue Officer and consequently promote him to the post of District Revenue Officer with effect from the date of promotion given to his juniors with all monetary and service benefits by issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. Since the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2. Petitioner while serving as a Tahsildar claimed that he should be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector for the year 1993. Petitioner states that he belongs to the Schedule Caste Community and also submitted that on the crucial date for considering his claim (i.e.) on 31.12.1992, he was in service as Tahsildar. He made representation to the Principal Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Chepauk, stating that the claims of similarly placed persons, belonging to the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community and other communities as well, who had not put in the required period of one year service as Tahsildar have been granted the benefit of inclusion into the panel for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector. The petitioner alone was chosen for discrimination. The representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Government in the impugned G.O., stating that the petitioner has not served for a period of one year as required under Rule 3(a) of the Special rules for Tamil Nadu Civil Service. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that in the impugned order, the Government has not stated any reason, except relying upon the rule. The Government has not taken into consideration the fact that several persons of the same category as that of the petitioner was given the benefit of inclusion into the panel for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector, even though they did not complete the required period of service as Tahsildar. In particular, the petitioner pointed out two Government Orders, viz., G.O.No.921 dated 20.8.1992 in which 10 persons were granted the benefit of inclusion into the panel for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector even though they had put in only 3 to 6 months of service as Tahsildar. In the case of G.O.No.56 dated 23.1.1993, the Tahsildar in that case has put in only two months of service and his case was considered by the Government by relaxing the Rule 3(a) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Civil Service. It is also pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no adverse https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ remarks against the petitioner. The petitioner alone is chosen for hostile discrimination. 4. Heard Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents who submitted that relaxation is granted on case to case basis and the claim of the petitioner was rejected after considering all relevant aspects. 5. The Government Order which is impugned in the present writ petition though refers Rule 3(a) of the above said Rules does not indicate as to why the petitioner alone was chosen for different treatment from that of the other similarly placed persons, who have served as Tahsildar for a bare period of three to six months as in the case of the petitioner. In G.O.No.56 dated 23.1.1993, the individual had only served for two months as Tahsildar. In such circumstances, there is no reason as to why the Government has failed to consider the case of the petitioner for inclusion in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector. The rule has been relaxed for more than 11 candidates as could be seen from the two G.Os. referred to above. Petitioner cannot be sidelined or discriminated and in any event there is no reason given as to why the petitioner alone should be denied such benefits. 6. In such view of the matter, the impugned Government Order is set aside and the Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner on par with the relief granted to similarly placed persons in terms of G.O.No.921 dated 20.8.1992 and G.O.No.56 dated 23.1.1993 and suitable orders may be passed for appropriate relief as may be applicable to the petitioner within a reasonable period preferably on or before 30.4.2010, considering the facts that the petitioner had already superannuated. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue (Service-1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.6105 1 cc to Mr.R.Singgaravelan, Advocate, Sr.No.5663 Order in W.P.No.37719 of 2006 TS {CO} TP/11.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/