Madras High Court
Tamil Mullai vs The Principal Secretary And on 28 August, 2023
W.P.No.19977 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.19977 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
Tamil Mullai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
3. N.Sakthivel,
Deputy Tahsildar,
C/o, The District Collector,
Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Direction or order in the nature of a Writ, directing the respondents 1 and
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19977 of 2010
2 re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of the Deputy
Tahsildar and place her above the third respondent, in compliance with
the judgment dated 08.04.2009 in Civil Appeal Nos.2251 and 2252/2009
and also fix her pay on par with her junior on that basis, with
consequential benefits of increments arrears of pay, including promotion
as Tahsildar quash all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi
For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.M.Rajangam,
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain
for Mr.I.Kowser Nissar
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the
respondents 1 and 2 to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of
the Deputy Tahsildar as per the judgment dated 08.04.2009 in Civil
Appeal Nos.2251 and 2252 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19977 of 2010
2. The petitioner joined as Typist in Salem Revenue District
Unit on 17.10.1994 through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant in the year 1998. After
completion of M.Com and B.Ed., Degree examination, she got eligiblity
for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2004 itself. However, she
was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar only in the year 2009. Hence, she
submitted a representation before the first respondent to refix the
seniority in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar in the light of Honble Supreme
Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.2252 of 2009 and 2252 of 2009 dated
08.04.2009 reported in 2009 (5) SCC 625.
3. Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that
the judgment in which the petitioner sought for re-fixation of her
seniority has been now clarified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal Nos.251-256 of 2015 dated 12.03.2019 held that
promotions of the Direct recruit Assistants effected between 07.02.1995
and 08.04.2009 and their seniority in their respective positions as on
date, shall not be disturbed. The benefit extended to the graduate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19977 of 2010
promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants
is to be given effect to prospectively from the date of judgment of this
Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in the case of M.Rathinaswami Vs.
State of Tamil Nadue reported in (2009) 5 SCC 625. Further held that
after 08.04.2009, the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar from its
feeder category ie., Direct recruit Assistants and Promotee graduate
Assistants shall be strictly in accordance with the judgement of this Court
referred above. i.e., treating promotee graduate Assistants on par with
Direct recruit Assistants. If any panels are prepared and promotions are
given, after 08.04.2009 for promoting the Assistants to the post of
Deputy Tahsildars in Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service contrary
to the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009, such panels and
promotions have to be revised so as to bring in conformity with the
above judgment. So far as the promotee non-graduate assistants are
concerned, the amended rule holds the field, which gives preferential
treatment to Direct recruit Assistants over promotee non-graduate
Assistants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19977 of 2010
4. In view of the above, the relief sought by the petitioner
cannot be considered and the writ petition is devoid of merits and the
same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.08.2023
mfa
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
To
1. The Principal Secretary and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
3. N.Sakthivel,
Deputy Tahsildar,
C/o, The District Collector,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19977 of 2010
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN ,J.,
mfa
W.P.No.19977 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
28.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
