Madras High Court
G.Senthil vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 June, 2023
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
and
W.M.P.Nos.18951 of 2020 and 4682 of 2022
1.G.Senthil
2.G.Kartik
3.K.Kengeswaran
4.K.Mythili
5.Y.Queensa
6.T.Vimalkumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department,
Chennai – 9. ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the
file of the respondent relating to the issue of impugned orders, viz.,
G.O.(4D)No.26 and G.O.(4D)No.27 even dated 22.07.2015 and quash
the said G.O.(4D)No.26 dated 22.07.2015 in so far as not including the
names of the petitioners therein above their juniors and the
G.O.(4D)No.27 dated 22.07.2015 in so far as not regularizing the
petitioners' services with effect from their initial date of joining as ASO
pursuant to G.O.(4D)No.41 dated 02.11.2012 issued by the respondent
and consequently to direct the respondent to prepare and approve afresh
the said panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the category of ASO in
accordance with rules by placing the petitioners in the said panel above
or on par with their juniors and to regularize the services of the
petitioners in the category of ASO with effect from the date of their
joining as ASO on temporary promotion pursuant to G.O.(4D)No.41
dated 02.11.2012 issued by the respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Amardeep
for M/s.Tamizh Law Firm
For Respondent : Mr.S.Silambannan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.M.Babu Barveez
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/10
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
ORDER
The writ petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on
the file of the respondent in relation to the impugned orders in
G.O.(4D)No.26 and G.O.(4D)No.27 dated 22.07.2015 and quash the
same insofar as the petitioners' name not being included therein above
with their juniors and to regularize the petitioners services with effect
from their initial date of joining on 02.11.2012 and to consequently
direct the respondent to prepare and approve a fresh panel of assistants,
fit for promotion to the category of Assistant Section Officers, in
accordance with the rules and place the petitioners above or on par with
their juniors to regularize the services of the petitioners in the categories
of Assistant Section Officers, with effect from their date of joining on
temporary promotion pursuant to G.O.(4D)No.41, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (U) Department dated 02.11.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
2. Even though all the petitioners have come together, factually
their grievances are not identical. Insofar as the first and third
petitioners, their specific grievance is that they missed the crucial date of
01.08.2012 by few days alone and the respondent ought to have relaxed
the rule for the first and third petitioners, since there was an
administrative delay in relieving the first and third petitioners from their
former post of Village Administrative Officer (VAO), despite the
petitioners seeking to be relieved well before the crucial date.
3. According to the first and third petitioners, the delay is not on
account of their action or inaction and it was purely administrative for
which, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer.
4. It is also contended that in one case, the respondent has chosen
to relax the rule on the ground that the concerned person had not
completed his crash course (Foundation Training Course).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
5. The respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit stating
that the general rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services
have been followed and there is no irregularity whatsoever.
6. The petitioners cannot seek for relaxation of the crucial date
namely 01.08.2012 and admittedly, the petitioners were not qualified on
the forenoon of the crucial date for inclusion of their names in the regular
panel to the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO) for the year
2012-2013. However, rightly their names have been included in the
panel of Assistant Section Officer (ASO) for the year 2013-2014.
Therefore, the respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. In the additional affidavit, it is stated that non-completion of
probation/Foundation Training Course on the crucial date was purely an
administrative delay by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services and
therefore, the petitioners are being prejudiced on account of such delay,
for no fault of theirs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
8. It is also specifically pointed out that in the case of juniors to the
petitioners, the rules were relaxed permitting them to undergo crash
course (Foundation Training Course) at Anna University (Management)
extending the time by 10 days and they were included in the regular
panel of 2012-2013.
9. However, the respondent has filed an additional Counter
Affidavit to meet the averments and allegations in the said Additional
Affidavit. Insofar as the administrative delay, it is the specific case of
the respondent that the fact that the petitioners chose to write the Tamil
Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) examination and come
through a totally different channel and they cannot attribute any
allegation with regard to the delay in relieving them from the earlier
posts of VAOs and that in such event, which is alleged to be
administrative delay will not in any way have a bearing on the petitioners
fulfilling the requirements in the present employment, namely meeting
the crucial cut off date on 01.08.2012. Further, rules being relaxed in
respect of juniors to the petitioners, the respondent has categorically
stated that insofar as probation, there is no question of any relaxation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
only in respect of qualification, a deviation was made in certain cases,
which will not come to the aid of the petitioners as the relaxation of the
rule in respect of the qualification cannot be equated to relaxation of the
mandatory probation period.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Advocate General Mr.S.Silambannan.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasant Rao Roman Vs
Union of India, reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 324, wherein, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where, there is an administrative
delay, the same cannot be put against the petitioner. However, that was
a case where, the appellant was placed under suspension and he was
made to suffer on account of administrative reasons. Under such
circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had found that the appellant
therein cannot be faulted for not completing the requisite number
prescribed, which was put against him.
12. In Arun Kumar Chatterjee Vs South Eastern Railway and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
others, reported in 1985 AIR 482, relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the facts were entirely different, where, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that gross injustice was done to the appellant and
there was a mistake committed by the authorities and they had to re-fix
the seniority of the appellant.
13. The facts of the said case is not in any way help the petitioners
case, which is totally different to the facts here. Insofar as the other
petitioners, except the first and third petitioners, it is submitted by the
learned Additional Advocate General that the other petitioners did not
even qualify since they went on leave, especially during the probation
period and hence, their cases cannot be considered even on the same
pedestal as that of the first and third petitioners.
14. In so far as the first and third petitioners, as rightly contended
by the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent, that the
fact the first and third petitioners have chosen to relieve themselves from
their former post of VAOs on the ground that they have cleared TNPSC
Examination in order to avail of better employment, it cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
attributed as a delay on account of the respondent, requiring the
respondent to relax the rule. The cut off/crucial date is 01.08.2012 and
the fact that probation is mandatory also, it cannot be lightly brushed
aside.
15. Admittedly, the petitioners' only contention is that they missed
the bus only by few days that too on account of the administrative delay
in relieving letter being issued from their earlier employment. The said
claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
16. This Court not find any merits in the writ petition. For all the
foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
27.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
P.B.BALAJI, J.
arb
To
The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Chennai – 9.
W.P.No.18335 of 2016
and
W.M.P.Nos.18951 of 2020 and 4682 of 2022
27.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
