On 24th July 2020, The Supreme Court of India, in the case of R. Palanisamy & Ors v. The Registrar General High Court of Madras & Ors comprising of Chief Justice of India Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian dismissed the Special Petition and ruled that the Petitioner cannot take refuge under the failure of the Government to issue a necessary amendment to Statutory Rules.
Facts
22 Persons, of whom 3 are working as Record Clerks and the rest working as Office Assistants in various Courts of Erode District filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking a mandamus to consider their claim for promotion to the post of Junior Baliff, without insisting on the Educational Qualification of a pass in SSLC. The High Court rejected the claim and aggrieved by the dismissal by the High Court, of their claim for promotion to the post of Junior Baliff, persons working as Office Assistants/Record Clerks in various Courts in Erode District of the State of Tamil Nadu have come up with the Special Leave Petition.
High Court
Petitioners order was based on various claims as follows:
- A previous order of the High Court dated 22.07.2009 in a batch of cases.
- The fact that the vacancies to which they lay a claim, arose before the issue of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Service) Act, 2016, and that, therefore a pass in SSLC cannot be insisted upon as a qualification for promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff.
- The previous judgment of the High Court passed in a batch of cases. Pending the issue of amendment to statutory rules,
- The nomenclature of the post has changed and
- A higher scale was also given to the post. One cannot reap the benefit and ignore the requirement. The previous judgment of the High Court did not take of any note of any of the above developments
The High Court of Madras rejected the claim on the ground that the previous Judgment of the Court in the batch of cases is no longer of any relevance, after coming into force of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and that the date on which the vacancies arose cannot determine the rule applicable for recruitment by promotion.
Supreme Court Findings & Order
Supreme Court stated that this act was enacted to consolidate the law relating to recruitment and the terms and conditions of service of persons appointed to the state and Subordinate Services in the State of Tamil Nadu, in terms of the mandate contained in Article 309. Until the advent of this Act, the State of Tamil Nadu, like many other states, was only issuing rules in exercise of the power conferred by the Proviso to Article 309, though such rules were meant only to be a stop-gap arrangement until an act of the legislature was made.
Supreme Court further stated that “the High Court may be right in saying in the impugned order that the Special Rules would no longer govern the service of the petitioner. The reliance placed by the High Court on Section 20(2) of the 2016 Act may not also be fully correct, since the same does not, by itself prescribe any qualification. Section 20 merely explains what a reference in the special rules to the expression ‘minimum general educational qualification would connate. This provision namely Section 20, is applicable only to cases where the Special Rules prescribe the possession of the minimum general educational qualification as a prerequisite for appointment to any class or category of service. Section 20 of the Act read with Schedule III merely defined the expression “minimum general educational qualification” as found in the Special Rules.”
Supreme Court, held that the ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court is unassailable, despite the omission of the High Court to take note of Section 68 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 201t6 and the interpretation that Section 20 deserved.
Further, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
