Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Srinivasan on 21 September, 2021
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR .JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 12965 of 2021
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Assistant Director,
Land Surveys & Records Dept.,
Kanchipuram – 631 001. ..Appellants
Vs.
S. Srinivasan ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 05.03.2021 passed in
W.P. No. 21070 of 2014.
For Appellants :: Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar
Govt. Counsel
For Respondent :: Mr.J. Ravikumar for
Mr.N. Senthilkumar
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYATHAN,J.)
The present appeal has been preferred as against the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2021 passed in W.P. No.21070 of 2014.
2. The respondent herein had challenged the order dated 29.04.2014
passed by the 1st appellant herein rejecting his request to grant exemption
from passing the departmental tests and the consequential order dated
30.04.2014 passed by the 2nd appellant terminating the service of the
respondent herein. The learned Single Judge, following the order passed by
the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 6421 of 2008, involving
a similar issue, allowed the writ petition with regard to settlement of
terminal benefits, to be disbursed within a stipulated time. Challenging the
said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the Department.
3. Acccording to the appellants, as per the Special rules for Tamil
Nadu Survey and Land Records Subordinate Services, the respondent/writ
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
petitioner should pass the departmental tests, either in old pattern or in the
revised pattern, so as to enable him to get his probation declared and for
promotion. The contention of the appellants is that though the
respondent/writ petitioner was given the opportunity to take part in all the
four papers of Revenue Draughtsman Test, which are mandatory to be
cleared, he could not clear two papers, even after five years of service and
in the extended period also, which resulted in removal from service.
According to the appellants, though the respondent/writ petitioner sought
exemption from passing the test, placing reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 1120
Personnel & Administrative Reforms dated 30.10.1984, there is no evidence
produced by the respondent/writ petitioner that he made five attempts prior
to attaining 53 years of age and in view of the same, the learned Single
ought not to have interfered with the impugned order referring to the earlier
judgment of this Court reported in CDJ 2015 MHC 1821 (K.
Ramasubramanian V. The Agriculture Production Commissioner &
Secretary to Government & Others). In the case referred to by the learned
Single Judge, the employee therein had not completed 53 years of age and
that it had been held that it was open to the Government to consider his case
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1120 dated 30.10.1984 after completion of
required age and conditions stipulated therein. As the respondent/writ
petitioner did not satisfy the conditions with regard to clearance of tests and
did not produce hall tickets in terms of the above Government Order to
prove the attempts made by him, the order impugned in the writ petition,
passed by the 1st appellant is perfectly valid and the interference by the
learned Single Judge is uncalled for and the orders passed by the appellants
require to be restored.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that the respondent had joined the Survey Department as a Section Writer in
the year 1984. In the year 1997, while he was working as Draughtsman, his
services were regularised on 10.12.1997. The respondent had to clear the
Special Test for Draughtsman Category (Survey Department) within a
period of five years for declaration of probation and future promotion.
Eventhough he had cleared Papers I and IV, he could not clear Papers II and
III of the Special Test for Draughtsman category, even after attaining the
age of 53 years and therefore, sought an exemption which was negatived by
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
the appellants by the impugned order dated 29.04.2014. The said order was
interfered with by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the three
conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 1120 dated 30.10.1984 would be
squarely applicable to the case of the respondent/writ petitioner and that he
would be entitled to all the benefits sought in the writ petition. According to
the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, when the respondent
satisfies all the three condtions stipulated in G.O.Ms. No.1120 dated
30.10.1984, the appellants ought not to have terminated his service, thereby
stalling his retiral and pensionary benefits. According to the learned
counsel, the learned Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition and
no interference is called for.
5. Heard both parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had joined the service
of Survey Department as Section Writer in 1984 and in 1997, he was
working as Draughtsman. His service was also regularised on 10.12.1997.
As per Tamil Nadu Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules,
the respondent/writ petitioner had to pass Revenue Draughtsman Test (4
papers) or Computation Test (2 papers) in the old pattern or Survey Test
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
Part -1 ( 3 papers) in old pattern so as to get his probation declared and for
future promotions. The writ petitioner had passed the Revenue
Draughtsman Test Paper I and IV in old pattern in the year 2005, but had
not passed Papers II and III even after several attempts. Even the exemption
sought by the respondent/writ petitioner from writing the departmental test
relying on G.O.Ms. No. 1120 dated 30.10.1984 was negatived by order
dated 29.04.2014 by the 1st appellant and he was terminated from service by
a consequential order dated 30.04.2014.
7. G.O.Ms. No. 1120 Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department dated 30.10.1984 lays down three conditions for relaxation of
rules for granting exemption from passing the departmental test and they are
as follows:
“(i) the official, to whom relaxation is sought, should have
crossed 53 years of age;
(ii) the official should have attempted to pass the
departmental tests at least 5 times and in support of the
attempts made, either necessary entries should have been
made or the hall tickets should be setn by the officers
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
concerned; and
(iii) the official should have rendered satisfactory service
during the tenure.”
Admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner had crossed 53 years of
age and he had made five attempts prior to attaining the age of 53 years.
Going by the counter of the appellants in the writ petition, it is seen that the
respondent/writ petitioner did not clear two papers even after the lapse of 16
years. However, it is stated across the bar by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent herein that out of remaining two papers, one paper has
been cleared after submitting the exemption application and the same is
proved by the document at Page No.15. Taking note of the age factor and
health grounds, the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No.1120 dated
30.10.1984 and the respondent/writ petitioner fulfills all the conditions
stipulated therein. He had made 18 attempts and even after the 18th attempt,
he was not successful in clearing all the papers. However, the conditions
stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 1120 dated 30.10.1984, mentioned supra, have
been fulfilled by the respondent/writ petitioner and therefore, the
Government cannot adopt a different yardstick in respect of the
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
respondent/writ petitioner alone. Hence, we are of the view that the learned
single Judge was right in interfering with the order passed by the appellants
removing the respondent/writ petitioner from service.
8. In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. If
the terminal benefits have not been paid, the same shall be extended to the
respondent/writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is
closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 21.09.2021
W.A. No. 2031 of 2021
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
