W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006
& 11327 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006
& 11327 of 2008
and M.Ps.No.2 of 2008 and 1 of 2011
W.P.No.48903 of 2006
1.S.Sowrirajulu
2.D.Thangavel
3.V.Murugesan
4.D.Nagasubramanian
5.N.Nallamuthu
6.R.Shanmugam
7.K.Sankara Narayanan
8.R.Kesava Ramanujam
9.P.Krishnasamy
10.P.Selvaraj ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006
& 11327 of 2008
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.A.Arumuga Nainar,
Assistant Inspector-General of Registration
(Zonal), Tirunelveli,
R/o.No.2-E, V-II, Main Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028.
4.K.Madalaimuthu
Assistant Inspector-General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road, …Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order of the 1 st respondent herein in G.O.Ms.No.151, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 24.11.2006 and consequential orders of the 1st respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.30, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 19.01.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.53, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 17.2.2007 and quash the same. (prayer amended as per order dt.17.8.11 by DHPJ in M.P.No.1/2010 in W.P.No.48903/2006).
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vigneswaran
for Mr.R.Parthiban
For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj for R1 & R2
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.S.Packiaraj for R3 & R4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/12
W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006
& 11327 of 2008
W.P.No.11327 of 2008
1.B.K.Gunasekaran
2.R.Rajendra Singh
3.A.Angappan
4.V.Arjunan
5.T.P.Ramachandran
6.A.Maruthachalam
7.K.Balasubramanian
8.M.Ramiahy
9.M.Rajamanickam
10.N.Gopalakrishnan
11.A.Dhanasekaran
District Registrar (Audit),
Kallakurichi.
12.K.Murugesan,
District Registrar,
Woraiyur,
Tiruchirapalli
13.V.Lucas,
District Registar,
Palani ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/12
W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006
& 11327 of 2008
2.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.
3.K.Durairajan Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Chennai (Central) Chennai – 18.
4.Mr.Chennakasavalu, Sub-Registrar (in the cadre of Dist. Registrar), Bharathi Salai, Chennai – 600 014.
5.Mr.K.V.Srinivasan, District Registrar (Audit), Kancheepuram.
6.Mrs.Rathna, Sub-Registrar (in the cadres of Dist. Registrar), Singanallur, Coimbatore.
7.Mrs.Angayarkanni, Personal Assistant (Chits) to I.G.Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.
8.Mrs.Sudhamalya, District Registrar (Guidelines), 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028. …Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order of the IInd respondent in Proceedings No.57043/A1/2007-3 dated 11.04.2008 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/12
W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006
& 11327 of 2008
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vigneswaran
for Mr.R.Parthiban
For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj for R1 & R2
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.R.Muthukkannu for R3 to R8
COMMON ORDER
The common thread in both the writ petitions are that the petitioners were all originally appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Registrars in the Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. The next stage of promotion is the post of the District Registrar. The post of District Registrar is being filled by way of direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer of Sub-Registrar of the first grade. According to them, they were all temporarily appointed as District Registrars under 10(a)(i)(1) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955. The private respondents in the Writ Petitions were all recruited by direct recruitment to the post of District Registrars. The issue involved in the Writ Petitions is as to the placement of seniority.
2.Heard Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.S.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4 in W.P.No.48903 of 2006 and Mr.R.Muthukkanu, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 8 in W.P.No.11327 of 2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006 & 11327 of 2008
3.According to the petitioners, they were all recruited as Sub- Registrars in the Registration Department and they were all temporarily appointed as District Registrars under 10(a)(i)1 and they have been serving so from the year 1986, 1987 and 1988. The private respondents who were directly recruited by way of direct recruitment subsequent to the petitioners who were holding the post of District Registrar. However, they were placed senior over and above the petitioners which was challenged in the earlier round of Writ Petitions. The same has attained finality in Civil Appeal Nos.2791 to 2793 of 2002. After the finality of the proceedings a seniority list was prepared, here again the directly recruited persons were kept above the petitioners herein without considering the fact that they have been regularly working as District Registrars even from the years 1986 to 1989. According to them, the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases have held that even though the appointment were on adhoc, temporary basis and not by way of stop gap arrangement, then such persons seniority should be counted from the date of original appointment and not from the date of regularization. If such principle is adopted, the petitioners will have to be placed above the private respondents. Therefore, the seniority list impugned in the Writ Petitions have to be set aside and the respondents be directed to re-draw the seniority list based on the date of their original appointment on regular basis even though their appointment was on a temporary basis. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006 & 11327 of 2008
4.Countering his arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the entire seniority has been re-fixed based on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a batch of Civil Appeal Nos.2791 to 2793 of 2002 dated 04.07.2006 in respect of the seniority to be fixed in the case of promotees Sub Registrars and the direct recruit District Registrars. When that being the case, the petitioners cannot complaint whatsoever as their appointment was originally made under 10(a)(i)(1) of the General Rules and admittedly, they were regularized much beyond the period when the private respondents were directly recruited and their probation declared.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would draw my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in a batch of Civil Appeal Nos.2791 to 2793 of 2002 in a instant dispute of arriving at a seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits. According to him, as per the said judgment, the entire issue has already been settled and in respect of the services of the petitioners and the private respondents, the Hon'ble Apex Court has already directed to redetermine the seniority of the direct recruit and the promotees by reckoning the starting point of seniority of such promotees from the date of their services were regularized and not from the date of their initial appointment, therefore, the present Writ Petitions have to be dismissed on that said basis as admittedly, the petitioners https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006 & 11327 of 2008 services were regularized much after the regularization of services as that of the private respondents. He would further contend that the review petition filed against the said order was also rejected on the grounds of delay as well as on merits and similarly curative petitions was also rejected as no case has been made out. When that being so, the petitioners are trying to reopen the issue of their rights in fixation of the seniority. Hence, prayed that this Court may please to dismiss the Writ petitions.
6.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7.At the outset, the issue of drawing the seniority in the cadre of District Registrars between the promotees and the direct recruit have been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2791 to 2793 of 2002 in the case of K.Madalaimuthu and Another vs. State of T.N. and Others reported in 2006 (6) SCC 558. It would be useful to extract the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:
26. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the respondents concerned to redetermine the seniority of the appellants in relation to the promotees after reckoning the starting point of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006 & 11327 of 2008 seniority of such promotees from the date on which their services were regularised and not from the date of their initial appointment under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the General Rules.
8.It is also brought to the notice that the review petition has been filed and the same has been dismissed and similarly curative petition filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu has also been dismissed.
9.It is not the case of the petitioners that their services were regularized much before the date of private respondents services were regularized on their completion of probation. The Government has reiterated that they has drawn the seniority list in strict compliance as per the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid batch of Civil Appeals. Since the petitioners services were all regularized subsequent to the appointment of the District Registrars by direct recruitment they have been placed immediately below them. As rightly pointed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the private respondents were not placed in the seniority list of the year 1981 but they have been rightly placed as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The claim of the petitioners to count the 10(a)(i)1 services relying upon by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be applied to the present case on hand, as in the instant case of fixation of inter-se seniority between https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006 & 11327 of 2008 the promotees and the direct recruits in the cadre of District Registrars has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2791 to 2793 of 2002 and therefore, I find that the impugned seniority list has been drawn as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex.
10.In view of the same, the Writ Petitions deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed, if any.
06.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order pam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006 & 11327 of 2008 To
1.The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006 & 11327 of 2008 K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
pam W.P.Nos.48903 of 2006 & 11327 of 2008 06.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12