Madras High Court
The District Collector vs S. Velmail on 23 February, 2022
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi. ... Appellant/1st respondent
Vs.
1.S. Velmail,
Formerly Extension Officer(Administration),
Srivaikuntam Panchayat Union,
Now Deputy Block Development Officer (Admn.),
Collectorate (Development),
Thoothukudi District. ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner
2. Thiru P. James Nirmal Roase,
Extension Officer(Scheme),
Panchayat Union, Sathankulam.
3. Thiru C. Kathiresan,
Extension Officer (NMP),
Panchayat Union, Kayathar.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
4. Thiru S. Ananda Narayanan,
Extension Officer (ADW),
Panchayat Union, Thiruchendur.
5. Tmt. P. Petchiammal,
Extension Officer(NMP),
Panchayat Union, Karungulam.
6. Thiru U. Subramanian,
Extension Officer (NMP),
Panchayat Union, Sathankulam.
7. Tmt. S. Subbulakshmi,
Extension Officer (Admn.),
Panchayat Union, Ottapidaram.
8. Thiru S. Balasubramanian,
Extension Officer (Scheme),
Panchayat Union, Pudur.
9. Thiru K.S. Veerabaghu,
Extension Officer (SS),
Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi.
10.Thiru K. Rajamani,
Extension Officer (Scheme),
Panchayat Union, Koilpatti.
11. Tmt. P. Packiam Leela,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Karungulam.
12. Thiru S. Palani Velumurugan,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Sathankulam.
13. Thiru A. Murugiah,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Srivaikuntam.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
14. Thiru S. Subbiah,
Extension Officer (Pt.),
Panchayat Union, Ottapidaram.
15. Thiru S. Ganapathi,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi.
16. Tmt. P. Vasantha,
Extension Officer (Scheme),
Panchayat Union, Tiruchendur.
17. Thiru. M. Muthu Krishnan,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Pudur.
18. Tmt. E. Tamil Selvi,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Tiruchendur.
19.Thiru M. Arumugam,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Ottapidaram.
20.Thiru R. Rajan,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Alwarthirunagari.
21. Tmt. P. Padma,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Kovilpatti.
22. Thiru E.S. Nesamani Rajendran,
Extension Officer (Pt),
Panchayat Union, Kayathar.
23. Tmt. M. Leema Rose,
Extension Officer (ADW),
Panchayat Union, Karungulam.
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
24. Thiru S. Ramasamy,
Extension Officer (Scheme),
Panchayat Union, Kayathar.
25. Thiru S.Murugan,
Extension Officer(Accts.),
Collectorate (Development),
Thoothukudi.
26. Tmt. I. Selvi,
Extension Officer (ADW),
Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi.
27. Thiru K. Sankara Narayanan,
Extension Officer (SS),
Panchayat Union, Kovilpatti.
28. Tmt. M. Paramasivan,
Extension Officer (SS),
Panchayat Union, Ottapidaram.
...Respondents 2 to 28/Respondents 2 to 28
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.3695 of 2005, dated 27.01.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Satheesh,
Government Advocate
For Respondents : No Appearance - RR2 to 28
: Mr.P.Mahendran - RR1
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order of the learned
Single Judge allowing the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3695 of 2005,
thereby quashing the order of the District Collector / appellant herein,
dated 29.12.2004, in and by which, the appellant had rejected the request
of the writ petitioner / first respondent herein to be placed in the seniority
list above the name of Tmt.Padma and directing the appellant to fix the
first respondent's correct seniority as per the earlier orders, above
respondents 2 to 28.
2. Heard Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent.
3. The first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a
Junior Assistant on 05.02.1986 on compassionate grounds. A seniority
list was published on 03.08.1992, wherein, the first respondent's date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
regularization was taken as 31.07.1989 and he was assigned with
seniority No.289(b). The first respondent made a representation to the
District Collector, seeking re-fixation of the seniority and claiming that
he should be deemed to have been regularized from 05.02.1986, namely,
the date of his initial appointment. By an order, dated 12.12.1997, the
appellant had accepted the claim of the first respondent and ordered that
he shall be deemed to have been regularized w.e.f. 05.02.1986.
4. On 05.05.1999, the appellant released the draft seniority
list for the post of Junior Assistant. In the said draft seniority list, the first
respondent figured at Sl.No.173 and his date of regularization was shown
as 05.02.1986. The first respondent/ petitioner objected to the same and
made a representation, seeking revision of his seniority on the basis of
his date of initial appointment. This request was accepted by the
appellant on 20.01.2000 and the first respondent name was directed to be
placed at Sl.No.202(a) instead of 289(b) in the 1992 seniority list and at
Sl.No.107(a) instead of 173 in the 1999 seniority list. Thereafter, the
appellant had passed an order on 20.12.2000 including the name of the
first respondent in the priority list for the year 1991 and the first
respondent was shown as Sl.No.2(e) in the seniority list for the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
1991. However, subsequently, when the seniority list was published for
the year 2003, the first respondent's name which ought to have figured
between Sl.Nos.18 and 19, was shown at Sl.No.80. The first respondent
made a representation to the appellant/District Collector, seeking re-
fixation of the seniority as per the earlier orders passed. The appellant,
however, rejected the said request on the ground that the first
respondent’s probation was declared later than that of Mrs.Padma, who
was placed above the first respondent, the request of the first respondent
cannot be accepted. This order was challenged by the first respondent in
the above said writ petition.
5. This Court, after considering the case of the first
respondent / writ petitioner found that the failure on the part of the
authority to declare probation cannot be a ground to deny the seniority to
the first respondent. It was also found that the earlier orders that were
passed by the appellant/District Collector, refixing the seniority were not
challenged by any of the other employees or private respondents 2 to 28
in the writ petition. Since the orders re-fixing the seniority had become
final, this Court held that the District Collector was not right in rejecting
the request of the first respondent for re-fixation of his seniority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
6. Mr. C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the appellant would submit that since the probation of the first
respondent was declared later than that of the said Padma, the first
respondent cannot be placed above the said Padma.
7. The learned Single Judge has pointed out that failure to
declare probation cannot affect the seniority. In fact, the
appellant/District Collector, himself has passed orders, accepting the fact
that the failure to declare probation was a mistake and the same should
be rectified. Specific orders have been passed placing the first
respondent above the private respondents 2 to 28 and those orders have
not been challenged by them. In fact, the private respondents 2 to 28
have not chosen to contest the claim of the first respondent in the writ
petition.
8. We therefore, do not see any ground to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge. We should also point out that if at all
any one is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, it is the
private respondents 2 to 28 and they have not chosen to challenge the
order of the writ Court. Hence, this Writ Appeal fails and accordingly the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
same stands dismissed. The appellant/District Collector, is directed to
comply with the orders of the learned Single Judge and re-fix the
seniority as directed above, within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M, J.] & [N.S.K., J.]
23.02.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.404 of 2011
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
