IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.6.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.37409 of 2004 G.Thangaraju ..Petitioner vs. 1. Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowments Departments, For St. George, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Chennai-34. 3. C.Dhanapandian, Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment (Administration) Department, Gugai, Salem-6. ..Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders of the first respondent dated 28.11.2003 issued in G.O.Ms.No.284 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department and G.O.Ms.No.285 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department (Anee 2-2) Department and quash the same in so far as it relates to inclusion and promotion of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Commissioner and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the panel dated 28.11.2003 issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.Nos.284 and 285 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department and to promote him as an Assistant Commissioner from the date on which the 3rd respondent is promoted as Assistant Commissioner in the respondent Department with all consequential benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukannu For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate for R1 : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Spl.G.P. O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders of the first respondent dated 28.11.2003 issued in G.O.Ms.No.284 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department and G.O.Ms.No.285 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department (Anee 2-2) Department and quash the same in so far as it relates to inclusion and promotion of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Commissioner and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the panel dated 28.11.2003 issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.Nos.284 and 285 Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department and to promote him as an Assistant Commissioner from the date on which the 3rd respondent is promoted as Assistant Commissioner in the respondent Department with all consequential benefits. 2. The writ petitioner, was appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondent department in the year 1977. In the year 1986 he was promoted as an Assistant. With effect from 23.12.1992, he was promoted as Inspector. In the year 1994, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.61 (Commercial Tax and Religious Endowments) Department dated 2.3.1994. The said Government Order provides that the post of Assistant Commissioner can be filled up by recruitment on transfer from Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowment Subordinate Service and Ministerial Service and 20% of the vacancy was allotted to this feeder category. The prerequisite for considering the persons under the 20% category as set out above is that the candidate should be a qualified Law graduate and should have completed 15 years of service. 3. The petitioner stated that he has completed 15 years of service in the year 1992 and having obtained the Bachelor of Law Degree in May, 1997, he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner in the 20% quota in terms of the G.O. referred to above. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent was appointed as Assistant Commissioner in the 20% quota, in spite of the fact that the third respondent had obtained the Bachelor of Law Degree only in May 1998. Therefore, petitioner should have been promoted earlier to the third respondent. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter-affidavit. According to the respondent department, even though the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ secured B.L. Degree in May 1997 and completed fifteen years of service in the department during 1992, it does not enable him to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner and include his name in the panel of the year 2000 (i.e.) for which the crucial date is 1.10.1999. This fact is not in dispute. It is further stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner entered service on 11.8.1977, whereas the third respondent entered service on 5.7.1971 (i.e.) six years earlier. Petitioner was promoted as Inspector on 23.12.1992, whereas the third respondent was promoted as Inspector on 12.11.1980, twelve years prior to the petitioner. 5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent department contended that the petitioner is far junior in service to that of the third respondent. There is no dispute that at the time of preparing the panel in the year 2000 and on the crucial date, namely, 1.10.1999, the third respondent was senior to the petitioner. The only difficulty that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the third respondent obtained B.L. Degree in the year 1998, whereas the petitioner obtained B.L. Degree in the year 1997. This factor has no relevance so far as the preparation of panel in the year 2000 is concerned. The relevant date for preparing the panel is 1.10.1999. On that date both the petitioner and the third respondent were fully qualified. The third respondent based on the seniority in the service is rightfully entitled to be considered under the 20% quota over and above the petitioner's claim. Merely because the third respondent has obtained B.L. Degree in May 1998, it does not disentitle the third respondent from getting the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.61 (Commercial Tax and Religious Endowments) Department dated 2.3.1994. In any event, in G.O.Ms.No.61 there is no such condition that the date of acquiring the Law Degree will be a relevant. The acquiring of B.L. Degree is a prerequisite for considering the case of candidates to be included in the panel. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowments Departments, Fort St. George, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Chennai-34. + 1 c.c. to Mr. R. Muthukkannu, Advocate. S.R.No.25843. + 1 c.c. to The Special Government Pleader (H.R. & C.E.). S.R.No.26589. Order in W.P.No.37409 of 2004 KU (CO) GSK 07.07.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/