Madras High Court
S.Sowrirajulu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 September, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
