Madras High Court
V.Prabakaran vs / on 30 November, 2023
W.P.No.22390 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No.22390 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.23644 of 2021
V.Prabakaran
S/o.Varadaraj
No.3/95, Bajanaikoil Street
Konavattam
Vellore 13. ... Petitioner
/Vs/
1.Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The Director
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building
Saidapet
Chennai 600015
3.The District Collector
Vellore
4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep.by its Secretary
Chennai 600 003 ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.22390 of 2021
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to
3rd Respondent proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.Pa.Aa.3/11758/2016 dated
13.09.2021 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to appoint the
Petitioner as Junior Assistant notionally in the year 2009 and placed him in
appropriate place in the seniority list of Junior Assistant of year 2007-2008 and
consequently promote him notionally in the post of the Assistant and Deputy
Block Development Officer on par with immediate Junior.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Nanmaran (for R1 to R3)
Special Government Pleader
Mr.R.Bharanidharan (for R4)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to 3rd Respondent proceedings made
in Na.Ka.No.Pa.Aa.3/11758/2016 dated 13.09.2021 and quash the same and
direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as Junior Assistant notionally
in the year 2009 and placed him in appropriate place in the seniority list of
Junior Assistant of year 2007-2008 and consequently promote him notionally
in the post of the Assistant and Deputy Block Development Officer on par with
immediate Junior.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Heard Mr.M.Muthappan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr.S.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 and
Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned standing counsel for R4.
3.Mr.M.Muthappan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner who is in the cadre of Record Clerk has been given with 10% quota
and can be promoted to the cadre of Junior Assistant. Even though the
Petitioner, was qualified in the year 2009 itself, and the vacancies are also
pertaining to the year 2007-08, due to administrative delay, the Petitioner could
get his promotion only in the year 2012 and he joined in the cadre of Junior
Assistant on 05.10.2012 and thereafter, the Petitioner got promoted as
Assistant.
4.The grievance of the Petitioner is that those persons, who are directly
recruited to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 2009 against their quota for
the vacancies of the year 2007-2008 have been promoted to Deputy Block
Development Officer. Hence the Petitioner claims that his seniority should be
refixed from the year 2009 on which date he becomes qualified for promotion
as against 10% quota and that seniority should be refixed on par with the direct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recruits, who joined on 27.05.2009. Admittedly the Petitioner got appointed as
Junior Assistant only in the year 2012 and he assumed charge in the post of
Junior Assistant on 05.10.2012.
5.In this regard, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Ashok Kumar
Srivastava & Another in Crl.A.No.6967 of 2013 dated 21.08.2013. In the said
judgment earlier judgment rendered in Pawan Pratap Singh and others v.
Reevan Singh and others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267 was referred in
approval and it is held as under:
“15. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has drawn
inspiration from the recent authority in Pawan Pratap Singh and
others v. Reevan Singh and others where the Court after referring
to earlier authorities in the field has culled out certain principles
out of which the following being the relevant are reproduced
below:
“(ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be
determined as per the service rules. The date of entry in a
particular service or the date of substantive appointment is
the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one
officer or the other or between one group of officers and
the other recruited from different sources. Any departure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or
otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
xxx xxx xxx
(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of
occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given
retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the
relevant service rules. It is so because seniority cannot be
given on retrospective basis when an employee has not
even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may
adversely affect the employees who have been appointed
validly in the meantime.”
16. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the irresistible
conclusion is that the claim of the first respondent for conferment
of retrospective seniority is absolutely untenable and the High
Court has fallen into error by granting him the said benefit and
accordingly the impugned order deserves to be lancinated and we
so do.”
The above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applied to the facts
of the present case.
6.Since the Petitioner could join in the cadre of Junior Assistant only in
the year 2012, despite he possessed the required qualification, he cannot claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his seniority on par with the direct recruits who had assumed charge in the
cadre of Junior Assistant in the year 2009 itself.
7.The principle is that an individual who has not borne in the cadre
cannot seek a place in the ladder above those persons who are already in the
same cadre and execute the functions of the said cadre.
8.In view of the above said position, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
sai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The Director
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building
Saidapet
Chennai 600015
3.The District Collector
Vellore
4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by its Secretary
Chennai 600 003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
sai
and
30.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
