Madras High Court
V.Gopal vs The Principal Secretary on 27 October, 2022
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.10258 of 2017
V.Gopal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Welfare of Differently-abled Persons Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The State Commissioner,
Commissionerate for the Differently-abled Persons,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records
culminated in the 2nd respondent's impugned proceedings in Ref.
Se.Mu.Na.Ka. No.2533/Ci.Pa/2015 dated 22.03.2017 and quash the same
and consequently, issue directions to the respondents to give promotion to
the petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.1995 by reckoning his service w.e.f. 24.12.1991
(now to the Post of Chief Educational Officer/ Deputy Director w.e.f.
01.03.2011) with arrears of Salary, continuity of service, all attendant,
monetary and pensionary benefits.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subburaj
For Mr.R.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The final seniority list issued by the respondents in proceedings dated
22.03.2017 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as Ministerial
Assistant on 02.05.1983 in the Social Welfare Department. The department
was bifurcated and new department of Directorate of Rehabilitation for the
Disabled was constituted. The petitioner worked as Selection Grade, Post
Graduate Assistant in the newly formed Department. He was appointed as
PG Assistant on 24.12.1991. The said appointment was questioned by the
other candidates before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the
matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and appointment of
the writ petitioner as PG Assistant in the year 1991 was declared as null and
void. Thus, the petitioner was found not eligible to hold the post of PG
Assistant in the Commissionerate of Differently-abled Persons Department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
the ‘State’ furnished a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, wherein, the Apex Court held as follows:
“11. The matter, however, does not seem to
end here. In the proceedings dated December 24,
1991, by which the appellant was appointed, the
date of his application is mentioned as July 17,
1991. This appears to us quite inexplicable as the
notice inviting applications is itself dated
December 5, 1991. The counsel, appearing for
the appellant, failed to give any satisfactory
explanation for this anomaly. We, therefore, feel
that the whole process of selection and
appointment was quite irregular and
unsatisfactory and in those circumstances, we are
unable even to sustain the appointment of the
appellant to the post of P.G. Assistant (Political
Science). We, accordingly, direct the concerned
authority to take fresh steps for filling up the said
post in accordance with the rules. The process of
selection and appointment must be completed
within three months from today. Needless to say
that every eligible candidate for the post on the
date of the notice for appointment would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
entitled to make application and selection will be
made in accordance with the rules.
12. Since the appellant is working on the
post for the past about 20 years, he would
continue on it till a fresh appointment is made, as
directed above.
13. The appeal is disposed of with the
aforesaid observations and directions.”
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
the ‘State’ made a submission that based on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, the case of the writ petitioner was reconsidered and
subsequently on acquisition of qualification in the year 2011 and
accordingly, the petitioner was appointed in the post of PG Assistant on
11.01.2012 as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thus,
the seniority of the writ petitioner was reckoned from the date on which he
was appointed as PG Assistant i.e. on 11.01.2012.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the
seniority of the writ petitioner is to be reckoned from the year 1991 and in
earlier proceedings, his seniority was fixed above Smt.G.Anusiya Devi and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
in the final seniority he was placed in S.No.4 below the said Smt.G.Anusiya
Devi and thus, the final seniority list is to be set aside.
6. The comparison made by the petitioner deserves no merit
consideration, since his first appointment as PG Assistant in the
Commissionerate of Differently-abled Persons was set aside by the Courts
and he was appointed as a fresh candidate in the post of PG Assistant as per
the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India only on 11.01.2012 and
thus, the respondents have fixed the seniority taking into consideration of
the date of appointment as PG Assistant based on the orders of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the proposals
submitted by the Commissionerate of Differently-abled Persons in
proceedings dated 17.08.2012. In respect of the proposals, a final decision
was taken by the competent authorities. However, the final seniority list was
published only after affording opportunity to all the candidates including the
petitioner. The impugned order reveals that objections were received from all
the employees concerned and considering the objections, the final seniority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
list was published by the competent authority in proceedings dated
22.03.2017.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
the ‘State’ brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner passed PG
(PS) in April 1986 and he has passed the subject in December 1987. As per
the procedure is being started afresh, during the issue of notice to Thiru.
V.Gopal / writ petitioner is senior than P.Gnana Selva Udaya Kumari in
getting M.A. degree in Political Science. Though the petitioner is a
Ministerial Staff, there is no bar or restriction in appointing him as PG
Assistant (PS) as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
9. Thus, the petitioner was appointed as PG Assistant (PS) with effect
from the date of the issuance of the order i.e. on 11.01.2012. It is clearly
stated that in the order of appointment that “The seniority of PG Teacher is
fixed from the date of issue of the order i.e. on 11.01.2012”. It is further
ordered that his past service rendered by him shall be counted only for
pensionary benefits. As the petitioner was posted afresh, his pay may be
fixed in the cadre afresh from the date of joining in the post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
10. The order of appointment issued to the writ petitioner on
11.01.2012, unambiguously indicates that the seniority of the writ petitioner
in the post of PG Teacher will be fixed from the date of appointment order
on 11.01.2012 and earlier service will be taken into consideration only for
the pensionary benefits. Accepting the said order of appointment, the
petitioner joined in the post of PG Assistant in the year of 2012. Thus, now
he cannot turn around and claim seniority with reference to the appointment,
which was nullified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order. Thus, the
petitioner is not entitled for the relief as his seniority was fixed based on the
appointment order as well as the conditions stipulated in the order of
appointment.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.10.2022
(1/3)
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
To
1.The Principal Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Welfare of Differently-abled Persons Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The State Commissioner,
Commissionerate for the Differently-abled Persons,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.9283 of 2017
27.10.2022
(1/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
