IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 04.02.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM and The Honourable Mr. Justice T. RAJA W.P. No.24449 of 2009 and M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 R. Sowmiya Narayanan ... Petitioner ..Vs.. 1. The Registrar-General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madras – 600 104. 2. The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc. No.3229/2007 A dated 4.9.2007 and consequential appeal proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.O.C. No.62/2008/C1 dated 20.8.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 9.4.2007 and to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant from the date when his immediate junior in the post of Copyist was promoted. For Petitioner : Ms. R. Gouri For Respondent : Mr. V. Vijay Shankar O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner sought for writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order of the first respondent by proceedings dated 20.8.2009, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and sought further direction to the second respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Assistant from the date when his immediate junior in the post of Copyist was promoted. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition along with the grounds are noticed. The counter affidavit is also perused. 3. The petitioner has brought forth this writ petition stating that the petitioner was appointed as Copyist by an order dated 19.4.1993. Thereafter, she joined duty on 21.4.1993 and posted at District Court, Krishnagiri. The petitioner was temporarily promoted by an order dated 29.7.1993 and posted to act as Steno- typist at Sub Court, Dharmapuri in the existing vacancy and that the petitioner joined duty on 2.8.1993 and even this date she continue to act as Steno-typist and getting the pay therefor. 4. The case of the petitioner is that insofar as the post of Assistant was concerned, Copyist, Typist, Stenographer were all feeder category and the petitioner was to be promoted as Assistant. It is true that the petitioner was temporarily promoted as Steno- typist and having the pay equal to the post of Assistant all along the period, but that would not satisfy the requirements. Even the receipt of pay available to the Steno-typist is equal to the Assistant, it would not give the relief and the petitioner was entitled to get the promotion as Assistant. In view of the paucity of the Steno-typists and due to administrative reasons, the petitioner was temporarily promoted as Steno-typist. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to have the regular promotion as Assistant from the category of Steno-typist. Even his junior, who joined the service later, was actually promoted as Assistant. 5. Under such circumstances, the necessity arises and the petitioner has made a representation on 9.4.2007 and the same was rejected by the second respondent on two grounds viz. the representation was made after a period of 13 years and the petitioner availed all the benefits available to the post of Steno-typist including the higher pay etc all along and hence, there is no question of giving promotion as Assistant would arise, so saying the representation was rejected. Under such circumstances, this writ petition has been brought forth by the petitioner. 6. According to the petitioner, both the grounds which were actually put forth for rejecting the representation were unsustainable. Learned counsel would lay emphasis that insofar as the post of Assistant was concerned, Copyist, Typist, Steno-typist were all feeder category, from whom promotions have to be made. It is true that it was the temporary promotion of the petitioner from the post of Copyist to Steno-typist and the petitioner has also all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ along been working so and getting the pay, which is equal to that of Assistant, but getting the pay equal to that of the Assistant cannot be taken into account since the Steno-typist is one of the feeder category to the post of Assistant. 7. It was mentioned in the order of the second respondent that with effect from 1.8.1992, the steno-typist should not be considered for promotion as Assistant. But later G.O. Ms. No.34 dated 21.2.2001 has come into vogue. If the said G.O. has got to be given effect, the petitioner has to be given promotion as Assistant with retrospective effect ie., from 2000. Hence the order of the second respondent has got to be set aside and the writ petition has got to be ordered. 8. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondents, who has made his sincere attempt for sustaining the order under challenge. 9. It is not in controversy that the petitioner joined service in the year 1993 as Copyist. Shortly thereafter, even as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, she was temporarily promoted as Steno-typist. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner sought for promotion as Steno-typist from the post of Copyist and it was given. Contrarily, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to paucity of Steno-typists and due to administrative reasons, she was temporarily promoted. 10. The petitioner, on appointment as Copyist, who worked for a short time, was actually promoted as Steno-typist and has been working all along for the post 16 years as Steno-typist and having the pay. It is well admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pay what is available to Steno-typist and also the Assistant are equal. Under such circumstances, there cannot be any pecuniary loss. Added further, the second respondent has pointed out in his order that the petitioner availed the pay of the Steno- typist all along the period. It is correct from the factual position as put forth to the notice of the Court. 11. Insofar as the other contention that with effect from 1.8.1992, as per G.O. Ms.No.417 dated 1.2.1993, the Steno-typists should not be considered for promotion as Assistant is concerned, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel appearing for either side that G.O. Ms.No.34 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 21.2.2001 has come into vogue. The relevant portion of the said G.O. is referred to in the letter dated 10.3.2005 issued by the Secretary to Government, which reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ " I am directed to invite attention to the references cited and to state that the ban introduced on 1.8.1992 against the appointment of Steno-typist Grade III as Assistant, in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service was lifted with effect from 5.8.2000 in G.O. (Ms) No.34, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 21.2.2001. It was also ordered therein that the Steno-Typist Grade III possessing 8 years of service as such and who opts for appointment as Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service could be appointed "by transfer" method, against 5% of the estimated vacancies, set-apart to this category, in a year. It has been clarified in the letter second cited that the Steno-Typist Grade III on appointment as Assistant should undergo the Foundational Training at the Civil Services Training Institute at Bhavani Sagar, for a period of two months, within two years from the date of such appointment, as in the case of typists promoted as Assistant as per rule 35(ab) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service introduced in G.O.(Ms) No.16, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 21.2.2002." 12. A mere reading of the G.O. would clearly indicate that between the posts of Steno-typists and Assistants, transfer could be made against 5% of the estimated vacancies set apart to that category in a year. Therefore, it would be fit and proper to issue direction to the second respondent-Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri to give benefit of the Government Order in G.O. Ms.No.34 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department dated 21.2.2001 to the petitioner at the earliest. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to follow the order in G.O. Ms. No.34 dated 21.2.2001 and consider the case of the petitioner for transferring her from the post of Steno-typist to the post of Assistant, subject to seniority. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssa. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Registrar-General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madras – 600 104. 2. The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri District. 1 cc To Mr.V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate, SR.7185 1 cc To Ms. R. Gouri, Advocate, SR.6803 W.P. No.24449 of 2009 and connected M.Ps. mg(co) pmk.17.2.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/