Madras High Court
S.Annapoorani … vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 September, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.7662 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.7662 of 2024
and WMP No.8577 of 2024
S.Annapoorani …. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary
Revenue and Disaster
Management Department
Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration
and Disaster Management
Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.The District Collector
Erode District, Erode.
4.The District Revenue Office
Erode District, Erode.
5.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
V.O.C.Nagar, Chennai 03. …. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.444/2024/A4
dated 14.03.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
1 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7662 of 2024
restore petitioner to the post of Deputy Tahsildar with all other service and attendant
benefits with arrears if any.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijay Kumar
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Loganathan
For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen
Additional Advocate General
Asst.by:
Mrs.V.Yamunadevi
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4
Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R5
ORDER
The subject matter of the present writ petition and the issue that has been
raised was captured in the earlier order passed by this Court on 10.09.2024 and the
same is extracted hereunder:
Heard Mr.R.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.
2. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition
pertains to the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent dated
14.03.2024 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to
restore the petitioner in the post of Deputy Tahsildar with all service and
attendant benefits.
3. When this writ petition was entertained on 21.03.2024, this
Court, on finding that a prima facie case has been made out, granted an
order of interim stay. Inspite of such order being passed, the grievance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not accommodated in the post
of Deputy Tahsildar and the salary of the petitioner was also not paid.
Therefore, Contempt Petition No.2076 of 2024 was filed.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 21.08.2024, it was
submitted that the respondents have filed a petition to vacate the interim
order and accordingly, this Court directed the Contempt Petition to be
posted along with the main writ petition for hearing. Accordingly, this
writ petition along with the Contempt Petition has been posted for
hearing before me.
5. The main grievance that was expressed by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was
initially working as an Assistant at Krishnagiri District Revenue Unit.
By way of one way transfer, the petitioner was reposted at Erode
District Revenue Unit on 03.07.2013. Her probation was also declared
on 06.03.2014. It will be relevant to take note of the proceedings dated
22.05.2013, whereby the petitioner was transferred to the Erode District
Revenue Unit. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“ 5/ khtl;l tUtha; myfpy; gzpahw;Wk; jkpH;ehL
mikr;Rg;gzpahsh;fspy; jFjpfhz; gUtj;jpdh; kw;Wk; jFjpfhz; gUtk;
Kof;fg;bgw;wth;fs; Mfpnahiu Jiw khWjy; bra;a ntz;Lkhapd;
jkpH;ehL mikr;Rg;gzp tpjp 20(v)(iii) d;go jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh;
njh;thizaj;jpd; ,irtpidg; bgw;W khWjy; bra;ayhk;/ ,jd;go
njh;thizaj;jpd; ,irt[ nfhug;gl;ljpy; ghh;it 4y; fhqk; fojj;jpd;go
njh;thizak; jd; ,irtpidj; bjhptpj;Js;sJ/ nkYk; mtUila gzp
KJepiyia mth; <nuhL khtl;l tUtha; myfpy; gzpapy; nrUk; ehspy;
cjtpahsh; gjtpapy; jFjpahz; gUtj;jpdh; gl;oaypd; ,Wjpapy;
eph;zapf;fg;glntz;Lk; vdj; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
6) ,e;epiyapy; jpUkjp/v!;/md;dg[{uzp neuo epakd cjtpahsh;
vd;gtUf;F fpU&;zfphp khtl;l tUtha; myfpypUe;J <nuhL khtl;l
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
tUtha; myfpw;F jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh; njh;thizaj;jpd; ,irtpd;
mog;gilapYk;. fPH;f;fz;l epge;jidfSf;Fl;gl;Lk; xU tHp khWjy;
tH';fp cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/
6/1/ ,e;j khWjypd; bghUl;L jdpah; gzp KJepiyia ,Hf;f
ntz;Lk;/ ,th; <nuhL khtl;l tUtha; myfpy; gzpapy; nrUk; ehspy;
cjtpahsh; gjtpapy; jFjpfhz; gUtj;jpdh; gl;oaypd; ,Wjpapy; KJepiy
eph;zak; bra;ag;gLk;/ ”
6. The further case of the petitioner is that her name was included
in the panel of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2017. Based on this panel,
the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar by an
order dated 31.10.2017. The petitioner was working in that post at the
Taluk Office, Erode District.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden, the
petitioner has been reposted (reverted) as Senior Revenue Inspector
(Assistant Cadre). The impugned proceedings dated 14.03.2024 was
issued by the fourth respondent in this regard. The same has been put to
challenge in the present writ petition.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf
of the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner was transferred to
the Erode District Revenue Unit by proceedings dated 22.05.2013
subject to certain conditions. In the subsequent temporary panel that
was prepared on 31.10.2017 the name of the petitioner was added in
Sl.No.33. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the
name of the petitioner ought not to have been added in this panel since
the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement under G.O.Ms.No.133
dated 07.02.1995 which requires that in order to add the name of the
person in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar, he should have
completed a total period of five years in the concerned District Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Unit, whereas the petitioner, in the year 2017, had not fulfilled this
requirement.
9. The next issue that was raised by the learned Additional
Advocate General is that the subsequent panel was prepared on
25.01.2024 pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court and this panel
was prepared by adding the names of those candidates who are eligible
purely based on merits. It is the revised panel for the year 2005 to
2022. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the name of
the petitioner does not find place in this panel and the petitioner has also
not chosen to challenge this revised panel dated 25.01.2024. The
consequence of this revised panel is that the petitioner was reposted as
Senior Revenue Inspector in the concerned Revenue Unit.
10. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
11. Before going into the grounds that have been raised on either
side, this Court is more concerned about the notification dated
25.01.2024, through which the revised Deputy Tahsildar Panel for the
years 2005 to 2022 has been issued. It is found that for each of the
year, upto the year 2022, roster points have been indicated. It was
made abundantly clear by the Apex Court that the promotion can be
only based on merits and there is no question of communal rotation or
fixing of roster points at the time of preparing the panel for promotion.
This judgment of the Supreme Court was subsequently further clarified,
wherein the Apex Court made it clear that all those promotions which
took place before 10.03.2003 need not be reopened. It was further
clarified by the Apex Court in the subsequent order passed on
09.05.2024 wherein the earlier order dated 18.04.2023 was reiterated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and if there are any individual grievances, the concerned petitioners
were directed to work out their individual remedies available in law.
12. In the light of the above orders passed by the Apex Court,
seniority should be only on the basis of merits and the communal
rotation or fixing of roster points has now been dispensed with by virtue
of the judgment of the Apex Court. Inspite of the same, this Court finds
from the revised Deputy Tahsildar Panel dated 25.01.2024 that roster
points have been mentioned for each panel year from 2005 to 2022.
13. When the above was pointed out to the learned Additional
Advocate General, he sought for some time to get clarification in this
regard.
14. The fourth respondent is directed to file an additional
affidavit by clarifying the query that has been raised by this Court and
the need for mentioning the roster points in the revised Deputy Tahsildar
Panel issued on 25.01.2024.
15. This Court has already granted an order of interim stay when
the writ petition was entertained on 21.03.2024. Therefore, the said
interim order has to be necessarily acted upon and for the present, the
petitioner must be considered to be holding the post of Deputy
Tahsildar. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to
settle all the monetary benefits to the petitioner, subject to the result of
this writ petition.
16. Post this case under the caption 'Part Heard Cases' on
26.09.2024 at 2.15 P.M.
2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 submitted the
additional affidavit of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has explained as to how
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the panel was redrawn pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court. The 4th
respondent has also clarified that the interim order passed in the writ petition has
been complied with and the petitioner was restored as Deputy Tahsildar in terms of
the proceedings dated 14.03.2024 of the 4th respondent with all monetary benefits.
3.Heard Mr.R.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Haja
Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 to 4 and
Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for R5.
4.The short issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as
to whether the impugned proceedings dated 14.03.2024, reverting the petitioner to
the post of Senior Revenue Assistant from the post of Deputy Tahsildar is illegal and
hence, liable to be interfered by this Court.
5.Elaborate submissions were made on either side touching upon the issue of
reverting the petitioner from the post of Deputy Tahsildar to the post of Senior
Revenue Assistant, on merits.
6.It is not necessary for this Court to deal with the merits of the case since the
impugned proceedings dated 14.03.2024, suffers from violation of principles of natural
justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant on 07.03.2012 at
Krishnagiri District. The petitioner was thereafter reposted at Erode District Revenue
Unit on 03.07.2013 on transfer of service [one way transfer]. At the time when the
petitioner was transferred to the Erode District Revenue Unit, the petitioner was an
unapproved probationer. The probation was declared only when the petitioner was
working at Erode on 06.03.2014. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post
of Deputy Tahsildar by proceedings dated 31.10.2017, in the same Erode District
Revenue Unit and the petitioner was working in this post.
8.The grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden, the impugned
proceedings dated 14.03.2024, came to be issued by the 4th respondent reverting the
petitioner from the post of Deputy Tahsildar to the post of Senior Revenue Assistant.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 4 by placing reliance upon various materials justified the reversion of
the petitioner to the post of Senior Revenue Assistant. The learned Additional
Advocate General submitted that the petitioner did not possess the necessary
qualification before she was promoted and posted as Deputy Tahsildar.
10.The various reasons that have been assigned on the side of the respondents
to justify the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Senior Revenue Assistant does
not hold water for the simple reason that the impugned order passed by the 4th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent dated 14.03.2024, has civil consequences. It is now too well settled that
wherever an order is passed and it has civil consequences, such order cannot be
passed without following the principles of natural justice.
11.In the instant case, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner explained as to why the stand that was taken by the respondents is
unsustainable in law. He also brought to the notice of this Court various materials to
establish that the reversion of the petitioner is not sustainable and that this is one of
those cases where the order of reversion was passed against the petitioner and
parallelly the name of the petitioner was also added in the panel for Deputy Tahsildar
for the year 2013-2014. It is therefore clear that the petitioner has some explanation
to oppose the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Senior Revenue Assistant. If
the petitioner had been issued a notice before she was reverted, the petitioner could
have atleast given an explanation and the same could have been considered and a
reasoned order could have been passed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent
has not chosen to even issue a notice to the petitioner and has straightaway reverted
the petitioner from the post of Deputy Tahsildar, which was held by the petitioner for
nearly seven years.
12.In the light of the above discussion, this Court without going into the
merits of the case, is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the 4th
respondent dated 14.03.2024, on the ground that it is in violation of principles of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
natural justice. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.
13.The petitioner has already been restored back to the post Deputy Tahsildar
as per the additional affidavit that was filed by the 4th respondent today. It is also
mentioned there in that the petitioner has been extended with all the monetary
benefits. In view of the same, the original position of the petitioner has been
restored.
14.In view of the above discussion, if the 4th respondent wants to revert the
petitioner from the post of Deputy Tahsildar, a fresh notice shall be issued assigning
reasons. On receipt of such notice, it is left open to the petitioner to raise all the
grounds by way of reply. While doing so, it is also left open to the petitioner to raise
objections with respect to adding her name in 2013-2014 panel apart from the earlier
objections that has already been given on 24.06.2024. The same shall also be
considered by the 4th respondent and a decision shall be taken as expeditiously as
possible.
15.This writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
NCS : Yes/No
KP
To
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Revenue and Disaster
Management Department
Fort.St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration
and Disaster Management
Chepauk,
Chennai-05.
3.The District Collector
Erode District, Erode.
4.The District Revenue Office
Erode District, Erode.
5.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
V.O.C.Nagar, Chennai 03.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
