IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.7.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.26267 of 2008 & M.P.No.2 of 2008 E.Santhanam .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the rejection order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.33350/2008.A2 and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for promotion as Junior Assistant and Assistant as per the Government Order Nos.781 and 386, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985 and 1.10.2011 respectively, with all consequential benefits. For petitioner : Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan For respondents: Ms.V.M.Velumani, Spl.G.P. ORDER Heard Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.33350/2008.A2, dated 28.7.2008, has been called in question, whereby, the petitioner's claim for promotion as Junior Assistant and Assistant as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.781 and 386, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985 and 1.10.2001, respectively, was rejected and the petitioner seeks to quash the same and also seek for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Junior Assistant and Assistant as per the said G.Os. with all consequential benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected and appointed to the post of Village Administrative Officer (for short, 'VAO') through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, 'TNPSC') and appointed to that post on 12.3.1984. Thereafter, his probation was declared and he continued to work in the same position. It is the petitioner's claim that as per G.O.Ms.No.781, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985, the Government accepted the recommendation of the first respondent-Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration in toto that the VAO might be eligible for appointment as Junior Assistant by transfer after they completed as VAO for a period of not less than five years and the claim for appointment as Junior Assistant might be considered for 20% of regular vacancies arising in a District every year and the said appointment as Junior Assistant might be filled up in accordance with the seniority in the post of VAO. 4. Thereafter, the Government amended the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service in G.O.Ms.No.362, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 21.6.1988, whereby, the Government stated that the VAO post was included in the Special Rules and classified as category 14(a). Based on the said G.O., the Government also issued instructions to their subordinates that all the Collectors were requested to initiate necessary action to draw the panel for the year 1992 by 1.5.1992n after obtaining necessary option from the VAOs. who have completed five years of service and to issue necessary orders. As there was no preparation of the panel for transferring the VAO to the post of Junior Assistant under 20% quota, the petitioner made a representation to consider his name for transfer from the post of VAO to the post of Junior Assistant as per the G.O. It was orally replied that the candidate selected by the TNPSC on merits will be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant on conversion only after exhausting Screening Committee VAOs. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that as there was delay of three years in making the appointment by the TNPSC, the petitioner joined the service only in 1984 as VAO. In the meanwhile, certain VAOs were appointed temporarily by the second respondent and they were not selected through the TNPSC. Those persons appointed by the Screening Committee without the recruitment by the TNPSC, competed with the candidates selected through the TNPSC, even though they were not direct recruits. The claim of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, over the candidates appointed by the Screening Committee, continued with several representations and thereafter, he moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.A.No.1902 of 1994 for a direction to the respondents to consider the situation and the service condition of the petitioner without any avenue of promotion, in consonance with the decision of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.417, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 1.4.1993. The said O.A. was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transferred to this Court and re-numbered as a Writ Petition, in view of the abolition of the Tribunal and the same was disposed of by this Court on 19.9.2007 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and that if the representation is still pending. After that, the second respondent issued the impugned order dated 28.7.2008 stating that the request of the petitioner can be considered as and when his turn comes for promotion as per the seniority and will be considered for promotion in accordance with the Government Orders. 6. The impugned order dated 28.7.2008 is challenged in this Writ Petition on the ground that the order, without disclosing as to how many persons were promoted as Junior Assistant and Assistant and the impugned order is contrary to the Government Orders in various G.Os., as referred to above and the petitioner's case for promotion was not considered in accordance with law, and therefore, it is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As per the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.781, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.386, Revenue Department, dated 1.10.2001, he has not been given weightage, and was denied the promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, as the VAO category is the feeder category to the said post. 7. The respondents filed counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that the Village Administration was earlier functioning with the help of part-time Village Officers, and in 1980, the Government took a policy decision to revamp the Village Administration set up. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.10 of 1980 was promulgated by His Excellency the Governor on 13.11.1980 for the abolition of the post of part-time Village Officers and the post was abolished with effect from 14.11.1980 by the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part- time Village Officers Act, 1981 (3 of 1981) and in the place of part- time Village Officers, full time Village Administrative Officers were appointed in Revenue villages. The VAOs were brought within the purview of the TNPSC as per G.O.Ms.No.2747, Revenue Department, dated 12.12.1980 and the Rules were amended to the effect that the appointment to the post of VAO shall be made by direct recruitment. Accordingly, VAOs were directly recruited by the TNPSC. 8. In the meantime, as a result of litigations over appointment of VAOs and based on the guidelines issued by the Tribunal, the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1195, Revenue Department, dated 6.7.1982 was issued, as per which, Ex-Village Officers who held office on 14.11.1980 and possessed the minimum general educational qualifications (Category-I) were appointed as VAOs by the Screening Committee. In G.O.Ms.No.1287, Revenue Department, dated 6.7.1988, orders were issued for appointment of Ex-Village Officers who held office on 14.11.1980, but passed SSLC subsequent to 20.2.1982 (Category-I) sponsored by the Employment Exchange as VAO under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules, subject to certain conditions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Subsequently, in G.O.Ms.No.954, Revenue Department, dated 16.10.1997, orders were issued for appointment of Ex-Village Officers who were not in service on 14.11.1980, but had worked as part-time Village Officers for a short period prior to 14.11.1980, but possessed the minimum general educational qualifications, if they are otherwise qualified (Category-III), as VAOs in any of the then existing or future vacancies as per the seniority maintained on the basis of their length of service. Thus, the existing village administrative set up consists not only of the Ex-Village Officers recruited through the Screening Committee and other methods, but also the VAOs recruited through the TNPSC. 10. While so, in respect of the promotion of VAO, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.781, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985: (i) that the VAOs were eligible for appointment as Junior Assistants by transfer after completion of not less than five years of service; (ii) the claim of VAOs for appointment as Junior Assistants may be considered against 20% of the vacancies in a District every year and (iii) on the basis of the seniority list prepared for the whole transfer as Junior Assistant, should be made. Subsequently, in supersession of the above G.O., the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.386, Revenue Department, dated 1.10.2011 to promote the selection grade VAO who have completed 10 years of service, directly as Assistants, subject to certain other conditions. The number of direct Assistants for promotion from the selection grade VAOs had been restricted to 10% of the vacancies arising in the Districts. 11. Further, the Government emphasised that the Junior Assistants converted from the VAOs as per G.O.Ms.No.781, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985 and later promoted as Assistants, should not be affected as against the Assistants promoted from selection grade VAOs as per G.O.Ms.No.386, Revenue Department, dated 1.10.2001. As there were some administrative problems in implementing the said G.O., necessary amendments to the G.O and also the relevant clarifications have since been issued in G.O.Ms.No.330, Revenue Department, dated 12.7.2004 and in Government letter No.23760/Ser.VII/02-8, Revenue Department, dated 12.7.2004 respectively. 12. It is the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the Ex-Village Officers who passed the minimum educational qualifications, were appointed as per the guidelines issued by the Tribunal, and they have acquired training, qualifications, etc. while they were working as Village Officers. Further, they have joined as VAOs prior to the joining of TNPSC candidates and hence, they were senior in all aspects than the VAOs appointed through TNPSC. This https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seniority list was correctly followed while converting them as Junior Assistant or promoting them as Assistant from the year 2001. In the year 1997, when vacancies arose in the Junior Assistant cadre, 20 VAOs were appointed as Junior Assistants in the proceedings dated 30.6.1997 in Rc.34103/97 A4, issued by the Personal Assistant (General) to Collector, Kancheepuram. But, only one VAO Mr.Pasupathi is continuing as Junior Assistant and the rest of the VAOs who were converted as Junior Assistant, have given the option for re- conversion as VAO and accordingly, they were working as VAO. From the year 2001, VAOs are eligible for promotion as Assistants, instead of converting as Junior Assistant and then promoting them as Assistant in accordance with their seniority under Junior Assistant cadre. No persons junior to the petitioner has been promoted as Assistant so far. The respondents further state that none of the VAOs, either from Screening Committee or from TNPSC, have so far been promoted as Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar as alleged in the Writ Petition. 13. According to the respondents, whenever, the estimate of vacancies are approved by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chennai, for the drawal of Assistant list, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration specifically mentioned the number of vacancies that are to be filled up by promoting from VAO post in the sanction order itself. Based on this order, claims are invited from the willing VAOs for promotion as Assistant and in accordance with their seniority in the VAO cadre, they are being promoted without any deviation. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition with an intention to drag the drawal of Assistant list in future, and thus, fencing his seniors from getting promotion as Assistant. As and when his seniority comes for promotion, he will be promoted. According to the seniority, he is the 8th VAO to be promoted as Assistant and he will get his chance for promotion as Assistant in the 80th vacancy, as 10% of vacancy in the Assistant cadre is earmarked from the VAOs. If his seniors relinquished their rights of promotion, then he will get his promotion earlier. 14. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that neither the petitioner nor any other affected VAOs filed any appeal petition against the posting of VAOs as Junior Assistant or promotion of VAOs as Assistants. Hence, the orders so far issued are in accordance with the Government Orders, as per seniority and as per law and natural justice. Therefore, it is well settled long ago that the candidates selected through the Screening Committee are senior to the candidates selected by the TNPSC. The candidates selected through the Screening Committee joined duty from 1982 onwards, whereas the candidates selected by the TNPSC joined duty in 1984 only. This procedure has been followed throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the orders passed by the respondents are valid and the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his submissions, vehemently contended that the Government Order in respect of 10% quota for promotion of VAOs to the post of Assistant has been issued on 1.10.2001 and therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to prepare the panel and promote the petitioner to that post immediately on issuance of the G.O. He further contended that till date, no seniority list has been prepared, and therefore, the petitioner's claim for promotion has to be considered by the drawing of proper panel as per the seniority list. The impugned proceedings, without disclosing the said information, will affect the petitioner's right, and therefore, it is vitiated in law. 16. On the other hand, the learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the respondents contended that it is settled principle that as per the policy of the Government, on abolition of the post of Village Officer, after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part-Time Village Officers Act, 1981 from 14.11.1980 and all other Government Orders, would give a clear position of placing the persons who were Ex-Village Officers as VAOs and the persons appointed by the Screening Committee prior to the appointment of the petitioner recruited through the TNPSC, are placed in their respective seniority and it is admitted position that the petitioner who was recruited through the TNPSC, is below the candidates appointed through the Screening Committee. Therefore, the decision taken by the respondents in the impugned proceedings cannot be found faulted with. 17. On the above background of pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents and the relevant Rules. 18. The circumspection of the facts, reveals that the Village Administration, which earlier functioned with the help of part-time Village Officers, changed to full time VAOs with the policy decision of the Government and Ordinance was promulgated on 13.11.1980, which became the law by enactment of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Act, 1981 and thereafter, the Government brought the VAO post under the purview of the TNPSC as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.2747, Revenue Department, dated 12.12.1980. 19. It is not in dispute that the persons worked as Village Officers prior to the commencement of the said Act, and some persons moved the Tribunal and as per the order of the Tribunal, the Government Order was issued in G.O.Ms.No.1195, Revenue Department, dated 6.7.1982 and the Ex-Village Officers who held office on 14.11.1980 and possessed the minimum general educational qualifications (Category-I) were appointed as VAOs by the Screening Committee. This position is admitted by the persons concerned in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Revenue Administration, particularly, the VAOs, who were appointed through the TNPSC, and therefore, the persons who were appointed under the Screening Committee, as per the order of the Tribunal, were placed in the respective positions, which makes it clear that the persons appointed through the Screening Committee, were placed above the persons appointed through the TNPSC. 20. While that being the position, the seniority was fixed by various Government Orders as stated supra, and thereafter, the Government took a policy decision and issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.386, Revenue Department, dated 1.10.2001, whereby, to provide promotional opportunity, the selection grade VAOs who have completed ten years of service, were promoted as Assistants, subject to certain other conditions and this was restricted to 10% in respect of the vacancy arising in the Districts. The Government emphasised that the Junior Assistants converted from VAOs as per G.O.Ms.No.781, Revenue Department, dated 25.5.1985, and later promoted as Assistants, should not be affected as against the Assistants promoted from selection grade VAOs as per G.O.Ms.No.386, Revenue Department, dated 1.10.2001. 21. There were difficulties in implementation of the G.O., which prevailed prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.781, dated 25.5.1985 and after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.386, dated 1.10.2001. In the above stated position, the respondents have taken a stand that there were some administrative problems in implementing the above G.Os., and necessary amendments were issued in G.O.Ms.No.330, Revenue Department, dated 12.7.2004 and in Government Letter No.23760/Ser.VII/02-8, Revenue Department, dated 12.7.2004 respectively, thereby, the difficulties which arose earlier out of the implementation of the earlier Government Orders, have been clarified and amendments were issued and the authorities have started implementing the orders thereafter, after the said amendments. 22. This position makes it clear that though 10% quota was prescribed under the post of VAO to the promotion of Assistant, which has been brought on 1.10.2001 by G.O.Ms.No.386, it has been implemented after the amendment was issued in G.O.Ms.No.330, Revenue Department, dated 12.7.2004 and also the clarifications made thereunder on the same day issued in Government letter in No.23760/Ser.VII/02-8, Revenue Department, issued on the same day. 23. That being the position, the claim of the petitioner for preparation of the panel between 2001 and 2004 and inclusion of his name, would not arise for consideration, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same has to be rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 24. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that based on the Government Orders issued by the respondents, the claims were invited from the willing VAOs for promotion as Assistants, and in accordance with their seniority in the VAO cadre, the VAOs were promoted without any deviation, and as and when the petitioner's seniority comes for promotion, he will be promoted. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that according to the seniority, the petitioner is the 8th VAO to be promoted as Assistant and he will get his chance for promotion as Assistant in the 80th vacancy, as 10% of vacancy in the Assistant cadre is earmarked from the VAOs and if his seniors relinquished their rights of promotion, then he will get his promotion earlier. 25. Today, learned Special Government Pleader has placed on record the letter issued by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram to the Government Pleader, dated 2.10.2009 in Na.Ka.No.50083/2008/A2, wherein, the copy of the District Gazette of Kancheepuram, dated 1.10.2009, was enclosed, wherein, the petitioner's name has been included in the seniority list of 2009 for the post of Assistant and the proceedings dated 22.9.2009 issued in Na.Ka.No.12615/09/A2 by District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, was also enclosed, wherein, the petitioner's name has been included in the seniority list of 2009 for the post of Assistant. 26. After noticing the said proceedings, still, the learned counsel for the petitioner consistently pleaded that the preparation of panel of VAOs for promotion to the post of Assistant, during the period in question, i.e. between 2001 and 2004, is still existing and it has to be considered by the respondents. 27. Upon considering the above stated legal position and analysing the various Government Orders issued from time to time, and the proceedings and the relevant facts indicated by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned order issued by the second respondent does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the Writ Petition deserves no merit consideration and the claim of the petitioner has to be rejected. 28. In view of the consistent plea taken by the petitioner that preparation of panel between 2001 and 2004 was not done by the respondents and it is incumbent on their part to prepare the panel and thereby give an opportunity of hearing to the VAOs who are in the benefit of 10% quota, if this grievance is still existing and subsisting, it is open for the petitioner to move the competent authority to make a detailed representation and if such a representation is made, it is for the competent authority to look into the same on merits and in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 29. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs To 1. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.43751 1 cc To Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, Advocate, SR.43698 W.P.No.26267 of 2008 VD (CO) RH (4.8.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/