IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 26-04-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.8968 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.9923 of 2006 1.S.Rajavelu 2.P.Balu 3.E.Dakshinamurthi .. Petitioners. Versus 1. Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-600 028. 3. N.Kumar .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the combined seniority list in respect of the post of Assistants, dated 1.10.2005, of the second respondent herein and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioners and the third respondent herein and direct respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the seniority of the petitioners ahead of the third respondent herein on the basis of the date of regularization in the post of Junior Assistants/Typists and consider the same as the basis for all future promotions and fixation of seniority and grant the petitioners all other constitutional and attendant benefits. For Petitioners: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondents: Ms.D.Geetha (AGP) (R1 & R2) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R 1. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, had passed an order, dated 27.11.1992, in O.A.No.1429 of 1989 etc. (batch), striking down the third proviso to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, as unconstitutional, as it was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the promotions granted by fixing the ratio of 4:1 between Junior Assistants and Typists/Steno Typists for promotion to the post of Assistant cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. 2. The learned counsel had also submitted that the amendment made in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, by way of the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.245, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 12.3.1985, had been held to be arbitrary, offending the principles of equality and fairness. Accordingly, all the promotions granted to Junior Assistants and Typists/Steno Typists categories, based on the 4:1 ratio should be set aside and the petitioners should be placed above the third respondent, based on his seniority in the promoted post, along with the attendant benefits. 3. The learned counsel had further submitted that there was no order, direction or an observation, by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in its order, dated 27.11.1992, saving the appointments which had been made on the basis of such ratio, during the pendency of the proceedings. As such, the promotion of the third respondent, as an Assistant, on 1.12.1991, cannot be sustained. When the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had struck down the third proviso to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules the promotions granted to persons, based on the said proviso would become invalid, automatically. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that the third respondent, who had been appointed as a Typist, on 18.2.1985, and promoted as an Assistant, on 1.2.1991, had been included in the panel of Assistants, for the year, 1990- 1991, as he had possessed all the necessary qualifications prescribed in Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, by adopting the system of 4:1 ratio, from among the qualified Junior Assistants and Typists, as per the seniority list maintained by the Department concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. It has been further stated that during the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, certain associations of Typists and Steno Typists had filed original applications, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, questioning the system of 4:1 ratio being followed in granting promotions to the post of Assistants. By an order, dated 27.11.1992, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had quashed the third proviso to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. As per the instructions issued by the Tribunal the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.417, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 1.12.1993, had directed that a panel for promotion to the post of Assistants should be prepared from the common interse seniority list prepared from the qualified Junior Assistants and Typists. Accordingly, the 4:1 ratio system in granting such promotions had been given up. As per the revised procedure ordered by the Government the petitioners had been considered for being promoted to the post of Assistants and their names had been included in the panel of Assistants, for the years 1993- 1994. The petitioners had been regularized in the cadre of Assistants, as on 12.1.1994. The appeals preferred before the State Government had been rejected. 6. It has been further stated that if the prayer of the petitioners in the present writ petition is to be granted the seniority of hundreds of Assistants promoted from regular panels, during the years 1984 to 1992 have to be changed and it would adversely affect the service conditions of the concerned individuals. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners cannot be granted at this stage. 7. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioners, in the present writ petitions. 8. Even though the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had quashed the third proviso to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, by its order, dated 27.11.1992, made in O.A.No.1429 of 1989, it cannot be held that it would have the effect of setting aside all the promotions granted to various https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ persons, as Assistants, during the years 1984 to 1992. It would not be appropriate for this Court to unsettle the settled positions of hundreds of persons in the post of Assistants, at this stage, by granting the relief to the petitioners, as prayed for by them, in the present writ petition, such an exercise would result in serious adverse effects, in respect of the service conditions of a number of persons, who are not before this Court, as respondents. As such the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. csh To 1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Personnel and Administrative Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-600 028. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 29161 1 cc to Mrs. AL. Gandhimathi, Advocate, Sr. 29132 Writ Petition No.8968 of 2006 KK (CO) kk 25/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/