IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.01.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM W.P.NOS.10813 TO 10818 AND 10179 TO 10182 OF 2006 AND W.P.M.P.NOS.12246,12248,12250,12252,12254,12256, 11499,11501,11503 and 11505 of 2006 G.K.Amaranathan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10813 of 2006 B. Kannaki .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10814 of 2006 K. Sankaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10815 of 2006 K. Saraswathi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10816 of 2006 R. Sivakumaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10817 of 2006 K. R. Janakaiah .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10818 of 2006 V. G. Arumugam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10179 of 2006 R. Haridas .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10180 of 2006 T. Elangovan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10181 of 2006 A. Settu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10182 of 2006 Vs. The Commissioner & Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 5. ..1st Respondent in WP.10179 to 10181/06 1.The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5. ..1st Respondent in WPs.10813 to 10818/06 2.The Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Vellore District, Vellore-9. .. 2nd and 3rd Respondents in W.P.Nos.10813 to 10818/06 and WP.Nos.10179 to 10182 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.Nos.10813 to 10819 of 2006 & WP.Nos. 10179 to 10182/06:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records made in the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2/21357/2005(Ni.Aa), dated 28.11.2005 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, SC for Mr.S.N.Ravichandran in all W.Ps For Respondents: Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP in all W.Ps - - - - COMMON ORDER This order shall govern these writ petitions 10 in number. All these writ petitions concentrate in assailing an order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the first respondent. 2.The affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are perused. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions: The petitioners herein were originally appointed as Surveyor cum Draftsman on consolidated pay through employment exchange and also by a duly constituted selection committee by the State. They were given three months' training. Large number of candidates completed the training course on the very day. Under the circumstances, a question as to fixation of seniority arose for which purpose, a selection committee consisting of three members was constituted. The committee assessed the candidates and assigned ranking in accordance with the merits, abilities and based on the previous service records. On the said assessment, a rank list was prepared and accordingly, the seniority was fixed to the candidates who have completed training successfully. This was also done in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules 35(a). Consequent upon the preparation of the rank list, the respondents appointed the candidates in the regular time scale of pay and accordingly, the service of all the petitioners herein were regularised in the post of Supervisors in the year 1985 though on different dates. Accordingly, a seniority list in the post of Surveyor cum Draftsman was prepared and published by the third respondent in R.O.C.A5.23623/84 dated 5.11.1984. The same was communicated to all concerned. The persons aggrieved over the same, preferred appeals against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seniority list. Finally, the seniority list dated 5.11.1984 was finalised and being followed. The petitioners were promoted to the higher post based on the above seniority list. The persons alike the petitioners were already promoted to two, three higher level post. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent issued an order dated 15.10.1998 revising the seniority list after lapse of 14 years in the category of Surveyor cum Draftsman which is in the lower category. The revision of seniority was made by the third respondent even without a show cause notice and without providing any reasonable opportunity to defend, and thus, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. What are all stated in the order of revision of seniority is the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 9.9.1991 in O.A.No.199/90. The said O.A. has got no relevance in respect of Vellore District. In fact four applicants from Cuddalore District filed the said O.A. and the Tribunal directed the authority concerned that the temporary appointment in the time scale of pay in accordance with the orders in G.O.Ms.No.910 C.T. & RE. Dated 10.8.1983 might be made strictly in accordance with the seniority among the personnel on consolidated pay. Thus, the order issued in Reference No.31/19555/89 dated 30.11.1989 of the Assistant Director of Survey, Cuddalore, was set aside. The revision of seniority list in the lower category of Surveyor cum Draftsman after a lapse of 14 years by wrongly interpreting the judgment of the Tribunal referred to above, is highly unreasonable and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioners filed O.As. Before the Tribunal. On 26.12.1998, the first respondent sent a letter accepting the claim of the petitioners and directing the third respondent to prepare the seniority list only on the basis of the date of selection. Accordingly, the earlier seniority list dated 5.11.1984 was restored by an order dated 25.3.1999 by the third respondent, and thus, the petitioners' seniority was not disturbed. On the same day, objections were filed against the seniority list by a few. It was dismissed by the third respondent. Thus, it has become final. Now, without any basis, once again the first respondent directed the third respondent to revise the seniority list on the basis of the date of appointment by the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2005. In such circumstances, the petitioners had no option than to approach this Court for necessary orders of quashing the same. Accordingly, these writ petitions have been brought forth. 4.The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions. 5.After considering the submissions made and looking into the materials available, the court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the writ of certiorari has got to be issued. Concededly, these petitioners were originally appointed as Surveyor-cum-Draftsman on consolidated pay and subsequently, they were regularised after passing necessary test thereon. At the time when the training course was completed, since number of candidates were available, the question as to the fixing of seniority list arose. Accordingly, process was done by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Selection Committee and considering the merits, abilities and based on the previous service records, the seniority was actually fixed on 5.11.1984. It is not in controversy that the said seniority list was given in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules 35(a). Originally, the seniority list was disturbed following the order of the State Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.199 of 1990 dated 09.09.1991. A perusal of the said order would clearly reveal that there were four applicants and orders were passed not directing either to disturb the seniority or to make any deviation of the earlier seniority list prepared, but it was only in respect of reservation. Following the said order of the Tribunal, the new seniority list was prepared. Aggrieved over the same, these petitioners filed O.A.No.8874 of 1998. While the matter was pending, on 26.12.1998, the first respondent sent a letter accepting that the claim of these petitioners that the original seniority list should not be disturbed was correct and has issued necessary directions to the third respondent, by communication dated 25.3.1999. Accordingly, the original seniority list, dated 5.11.1984 was restored. 6.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.199 of 1990 would clearly indicate that the original seniority list was not to be disturbed or to be deviated, but it was only in respect of the question as to the reservation, which was claimed by the petitioners thereon. Thus, once the claim was made by the petitioners, challenging the original disturbance of the seniority list by filing O.A.No.8874 of 1998, the first respondent thought it fit that the claim of the petitioners was correct and it must be restored. Accordingly, the seniority list has been restored. Thus, at this juncture, it has to be pointed out that it has become final. Once it has become final, after a lapse of a decade, the instant order has been passed again to revise the seniority list, which in the opinion of the court cannot be done for more reasons. 7.Originally, seniority list was fixed on 5.11.1984 strictly following the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules 35(a). Once it was sought to be disturbed by a wrong interpretation of the order of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.199 of 1990, objections were made by the petitioners and also they approached the Tribunal by way of an another O.A.No.8874 of 1998. Pending same, the seniority list, dated 5.11.1984 has been restored and it has also reached finality. Apart from that, once it has been fixed, after a long lapse of time, it has been sought to be revised, which in the opinion of the court cannot be done. It is brought to the notice of the court that in the instant case, all major part of the petitioners have actually been promoted and they are all in higher posts. Under these circumstances, if it is allowed to be done, the rights of the parties, who are entitled to have the seniority to the higher posts, would be jeopardised, which the law cannot permit. Under these circumstances, from any angle, the order of disturbing seniority list passed by the respondents has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ got to be necessarily quashed. Accordingly, the order under challenge is quashed. All the writ petitions are ordered. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Vvk Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2. The Commissioner & Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 5. 3.The Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 4.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Vellore District, Vellore-9. + 5 ccs to Mr. S. N. Ravichandran, Advocate SR No. 226 + 6 ccs to Govt Pleader (SR Nos.519, 578, 580, 581, 582, 583) W.P.NOS.10813 TO 10818 AND 10179 TO 10182 OF 2006 RSV(CO) SR/8.1.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/