Madras High Court
V.Saradha Rukmani vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
W.P.No.31403 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.31403 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.34087 & 35428 of 2024
V.Saradha Rukmani .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of
Personnel and Training), New Delhi -1.
3. The Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi 69.
R2 and R3 are impleaded as per order dated 30.10.2024 IN WMP.35425/2024
IN WP.31403/2024 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to include
petitioner name in the panel of District Revenue Officers for the year 2012 at
the appropriate place and consequently, include petitioner name into the Select
List of 2023 of the State Civil Service officers of Tamil Nadu for appointment
to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service by taking into consideration of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/55
W.P.No.31403 of 2024
petitioner seniority in the post of District Revenue officer strictly in terms of
the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.16862 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023
with all consequential seniority, monetary and service benefits within the time
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Nandhakumar
For R1 : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.VPR.Elamparithy
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.P.G.Santhosh Kumar
Senior Panel Counsel
For R3 : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to
direct the respondent to include the petitioner's name in the panel of District
Revenue Officers for the year 2012 at the appropriate place and consequently,
include petitioner's name into the Select List of 2023 of the State Civil Service
officers of Tamil Nadu for appointment to the cadre of Indian Administrative
Service by taking into consideration of the petitioner's seniority in the post of
District Revenue officer strictly in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court
in W.P.No.16862 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023 with all consequential seniority,
monetary and service benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case of the petitioner is that she has joined the service by
appointment as a Junior Assistant with effect from 10.08.1984 and the service
was regularised on the same date. However, instead of recording the petitioner's
seniority from 10.08.1984 erroneously fixed as 04.06.1986 and also the
seniority in the post of Assistant was not fixed correctly. Therefore, the
petitioner has approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, by
filing O.A.No.2223 of 2002, seeking a revision of the petitioner's seniority in
the post of Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department, Trichy District, and a
proper placement in the seniority list of Assistants as well. By order dated
27.08.2003, the Tribunal has directed to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner
with a direction to the Revenue Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu
to place the petitioner's name in the Seniority list of Junior Assistants between
Serial No.386 (Thiru.Ravisankar) and Serial No.387 (Smt.Muthulakshmi).
3. As a consequence of said order, G.O.(2D) No.260, Revenue
(Service 6(2) Department, dated 16.04.2004) was issued, directing the District
Collector, Trichy, to re-fix the seniority on the basis of the order of the Tribunal
dated 27.08.2003 in O.A.No.2223 of 2002 and based on the said direction, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
seniority of the petitioner was revised by proceedings dated 19.07.2004 in the
cadre of Junior Assistant and corresponding re-fixation was made in the panel
of Assistants for the year 1990 including the name of the petitioner, based on
which, revised orders were issued by the District Collector, Trichy on
20.07.2015 and 09.11.2016 respectively, re-fixing the relative seniority of the
petitioner in the posts of Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar and the name of the
petitioner was placed in the list of Tahsildars for the year 2003, as per the
proceedings dated 09.11.2016.
4. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.12.2016 before the
Commissioner of Revenue Administration to revise the petitioner's seniority
correspondingly in the post of Deputy Collector by including her name in the
panel of Deputy Collector for the year 2008-2009. The petitioner was promoted
as Deputy Collector with effect from 11.02.2012 onwards from the panel of
Deputy Collector for the year 2010-2011. Pursuant to the advancement of the
name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Tahsildars for the year 2003 and
from the list of Tahsildars for the year 2006, the petitioner states that her name
ought to have been included in the list of Deputy Collector for the year 2008-
2009 at the appropriate place on par with her Juniors and as a consequence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereof, the petitioner was entitled for refixation of the seniority in the post of
District Revenue Officer in the year 2012, whereas the petitioner's name was
erroneously kept in panel of the year 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted
a representation on 27.12.2016, seeking for advancement of seniority in the
post of Deputy Collector and District Revenue Officer. However, no order has
been passed on the said representation and the revision of seniority for the post
of Deputy Collector, the petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated
20.03.2017 and the proceedings dated 02.02.2018, the name of the petitioner
was deferred for inclusion in the panel of District Revenue Officers. Hence, the
petitioner had filed W.P.Nos.22472 and 22473 of 2018, before this Court. By a
common order dated 19.12.2019, quashed the charge memo dated 20.03.2017
and the proceedings dated 02.02.2018 and issued a direction to the concerned
authorities to include the name of the petitioner in the list of District Revenue
Officer for the year 2016 in accordance with seniority, along with all attendant
benefits, including promotion and monetary benefits. On receipt of the above
order, G.O.Ms.No.151, Public (Special-A) Department dated 28.02.2020 was
issued to include the name of the petitioner at Serial No.16A in the panel of
District Revenue Officers (DROs) for the year 2016 and based on the said
promotion, the petitioner become eligible to be nominated by the respondent for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
including her name in the list for appointment to the post of Indian
Administrative Service (IAS).
5. The petitioner subsequently sent a representation on 16.06.2020
and 08.02.2021, seeking for revision of seniority in the cadre of Deputy
Collector by advancing her name from the seniority list for the year 2010-2011
to the list of Deputy Collectors for the year 2008-2009, on par with the juniors
and after receipt of such representation, the petitioner was issued with two
additional charge memos dated 24.02.2021 and 05.04.2021 by the
Commissioner of Revenue Administration. Challenging the charge memo dated
24.02.2021, the petitioner filed W.P.(M.D) No.6390 of 2021, seeking to quash
the charge momo dated 24.02.2021 and the Madurai Bench of this Court vide
order dated 29.08.2022, allowed the said writ petition, quashing the charging
memo as prayed for. Similarly, the charge memo dated 05.04.2021 was also
quashed by this Court in W.P.No.10965 of 2021 dated 22.02.2024. Since the
petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2016 and the subsequent reminders
dated 16.06.2020 and 08.02.2021, for the inclusion of the petitioner's name in
the panel of Deputy Collector for the year 2008-2009 were not at all considered
and no order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15391 of 2021, which was disposed of on 26.07.2021, with a direction
to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration to consider the petitioner's
representation and reminders thereon within a time frame stipulated by this
Court. Inspite of receiving the said order, the Commissioner of Revenue
Administration did not pass any orders on the representation even after the
delay of 6 years of time, since the juniors to the petitioner by-passed her and
marching over her in the post of Indian Administrative Service. The petitioner
had constrained to file W.P.No.16862 of 2023, seeking for a direction to the
respondents to include her name in the list of Deputy Collectors for the year
2008-2009, in the appropriate place, on par with her juniors and this Court by
order dated 11.09.2023 allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents
therein to re-fix the seniority retrospectively in the cadre of Deputy Collector
for the panel of the year 2008-2009 in the appropriate position, i.e., below her
immediate senior, Mr.S.Christy and above her immediate junior and also in the
cadre of District Revenue Officer by placing her in the promotional panel of the
year 2012 and the said exercise was directed to complete within a period of 4
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
6. In pursuance of the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No.16862
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2023 dated 11.09.2023, the petitioner's name was placed at the appropriate
position in the seniority for the year 2008-2009. However, the petitioner's
grievance regarding advancement of seniority in the cadre of District Revenue
Officer for the year 2013 has not been complied with till date, inspite of said
direction and the representation sent by the petitioner were not considered.
Further, pending re-fixation of seniority in accordance with direction of the
Court, the first respondent have drawn the select list of the year 2021 for the
appointment of State Civil Service Officers to IAS and the same was published
by the Government of India, Ministry of Personal & Public Grievances and
Pensions Department dated 21.12.2022, in which, three persons junior to the
petitioner belonging to the panel of District Revenue Officers for the year 2013
were included for appointment to IAS cadre and likewise another set of seven
Civil service officers from the panel of District Revenue Officers for the year
2013 were included in the State Civil Select List for the year 2022. In these
circumstances, the petitioner stated that the delay in the respondents taking
action with regard to the re-fixation of seniority of the petitioner both in the
cadre of Deputy Collector and also the District Revenue Officer, by including
her name in the Deputy Collector Panel for the year 2008-2009 and the District
Revenue Officer Panel for the year 2012, had resulted in the petitioner from not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
being included in the Select List of State Civil Service Officers for the year
2021 and 2022 and as consequence, persons were juniors to the petitioner in
service were appointed excluding the petitioner.
7. Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
states that the exclusion of the petitioner is calculated attempt and it is very
obvious from the fact that the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and
Registration Department had recorded certain adverse remarks in the Annual
Confidential Report (ACR) for the period from 16.06.2021 to 31.03.2022,
inspite of the fact that the Reporting Authority has given outstanding to the
petitioner's performance during the said period. Therefore, the said entry was
challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing W.P.No.27493 of
2023. Initially, this Court entertained the writ petition and granted an interim
stay on 20.09.2023 and later the same was allowed on 13.12.2024.
Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 03.11.2023 in
contemplation of enquiry, and the same was challenged before this Court in
W.P.No.32896 of 2023, this Court had directed as an interim order to the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and the suspension period was
treated as duty period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It is further contented by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that the reason very best known that the delay and denied promotion
by way of conferment of IAS on the petitioner by resorting to scandalous
activities, though as many as 10 persons junior to the petitioner have been
appointed to the IAS in the select lists for the year 2021 and 2022 excluding the
petitioner.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contented that
inspite of the order passed by this Court, directing restoration of the seniority
and also the representation of the petitioner, seeking to re-fix the seniority in
the cadre of Deputy Collector and District Revenue Officer in the panel for the
year 2008-2009 and 2012, the first respondent not shown even scant regard to
the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16862 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023,
wherein this Court has directed to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner.
Therefore, left with no other option and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has
come to know that the first respondent is in the process of preparing the select
list of the State Civil Service Officers for the year 2023 for the appointment of
IAS cadre, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is also submitted that inspite of seven writ petitions filed by the petitioner and
filing petition before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in 2002 and all
those petitions have held in favour of the writ petitioner and none of the
proceedings have been challenged by the first respondent.
10. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing
for the first respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein the rejection of the
candidature of the petitioner has been brought broadly under two heads:
(i) The petitioner had not submitted self assessment
report on time so as to enable the Reporting Authority
to write the Annual Confidential Report (ACR).
However, without following the procedures, the
petitioner has got her annual ACRs written after a
lapse of 9 years for the period of 99 months, ACR for
52 months are not available in full form as a remarks
of the Reporting Authority/Reviewing Authority has
not been written. Without the ACR being complete,
the petitioner could not be taken into consideration
even for the probation of select list for the year 2023.
(2) The probation of the petitioner in the post of
Deputy Collector is yet to be declared and without
such declaration, the name of the petitioner could not
be included in the select list for the year 2023 to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointed in the cadre of IAS.
11. In response, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that while taking into the entire career of the petitioner right from
the appointment as a Junior Assistant and the present claim of conferment of
IAS by inclusion of her name in the select list submitted all along to have the
seniority list. The petitioner was made to knock the doors of this Court and
Tribunal each and every time and this Court or Tribunal through his orders has
directed the re-fixation of the seniority in the appropriate place. The last one
was W.P.No.16862 of 2023, by order dated 11.09.2023, directed the re-fixation
of seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Collector by including her
name in the panel for the year 2008 and 2009 and District Revenue Officer for
the year 2012.
12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed
out that by order dated 11.09.2023, issue has attained finality and no appeal has
been filed by the respondents and that being the case, the necessary duty cast on
the first respondent is to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of
District Revenue Officer by placing the petitioner in the panel for the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2012. Inspite of that being directed, the first respondent has not yet fixed the
seniority of the petitioner in the post of District Revenue Officer in the panel of
the year 2012.
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further states that
the act of the first respondent though it is contemptuous, the petitioner nowhere
at that point of time and with great respect had addressed the representation for
re-fixation of seniority in the post of District Revenue Officer by placing her in
the appropriate place for the panel in the year 2012 and inspite of her
representation and subsequent reminders, the first respondent has not taken any
steps to fix the seniority and without re-fixing the seniority, the first respondent
has forwarded the selection list for the year 2021-2022 for conferment of IAS
and 10 persons junior to the petitioner have been appointed to the said post,
which clearly shows that the first respondent for the reasons best known to him
has not taken any steps to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner. But, they have
included the name of her juniors in the select list for the year 2021 and 2022.
She also would further submit that seven occasions, the petitioner has come
before this Court including the present writ petition to have grievance redress
which were aimed to scuttle the progress of the petitioner to higher position not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only the first respondent. The respondents in the counter claim for ACR could
not be finalised as the petitioner had submitted her self assessment belatedly
and further it is claimed by the first respondent that about 52 months, the ACR
have not been fully written insofar as the petitioner is concerned either by the
Reporting Authority or by the Reviewing Authority and the same has precluded
the consideration of the case of the petitioner.
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out the
plight of the petitioner throughout her career, which is the calculated attempt
made by the first respondent to sideline the petitioner all through her service,
for reasons unknown. Even in the present scenario, the first respondent has
countered the claim of the petitioner for consideration of her name citing the
aforesaid two lacunae, which prevents the first respondent from considering the
name of the petitioner, but, it is the specific submissions of the learned Senior
Counsel that both the contentions advanced through the counter made by the
first respondent are attributable to the first respondent and its subordinates, viz.,
the Reporting Authority and Reviewing Authority and they are not attributable
to the petitioner and such being the case, the first respondent cannot come out
and state that the record of the petitioner is not complete in the absence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ACRs and declaration of probation, and therefore, her case cannot be
considered and the same has to be dismissed.
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
even in the counter clearly stipulates that the self assessment of an Officer is
not mandatory piece of material for the Reporting Authority, but it is only an
additional guiding piece in the formulation of opinion as to the work of the
employee by the Reporting Authority, which is even evident from the counter
and more particular reference is made to the following:
"3. Points to be noted by the officer reported upon
3.1 The officer reported upon is required to give brief
description of his/her duties and responsibilities which would
normally not exceeding about 100 words and a self assessment
report to the Reporting Authorities within a period of 30 days
after completion of the reporting period and based on the self
assessment report, the reporting officer, shall write his report
within a period of next 30 days and submit it to the Reviewing
Authority, in any case, the reporting authority should not wait
for self assessment report from the officer concerned beyond 30
days. Ideally, this should be in bullet form."
16. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the belated submission of self assessment by the petitioner cannot be put
against her, as no mandate is cast on the Reporting Authority to wait for an
interminable period to receive the self assessment before assessing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
performance of the petitioner. It is also submitted that it is the duty cast on the
first respondent to get the ACRs written within the time prescribed and the
delay in the writing of ACR cannot be put on the shoulders of the employee by
submitting non-receipt of self assessment.
17. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that protracted charge memos, one after another, was issued to the petitioner
only to prevent her from candidature being considered whilst the other junior
persons, whose names have been cleared and have been appointed to the cadre
of IAS. She would also drew the attention of this Court to the repeated non-
compliance of the directions issued by this Court with regard to re-fixation of
seniority of the petitioner inspite of the representations of the petitioner
pointing out the order passed by this Court in her favour. Even then, repeatedly
the petitioner was placed in a wrong panel, for which, the petitioner had filed a
writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16862 of 2023 and inspite of the
directions issued by this Court, there has been only a partial compliance and
refugee is sought by the first respondent on non-receipt of the requisite ACRs
and declaration of probation, which are within the control of the State and
could not be attributed to the petitioner as has been scrupulously following her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
re-fixation of seniority with the respondent to the various representations and
reminders.
18. She would further submit that though the petitioner has been
castigated by the Reviewing Authority by terming her work as not good and not
to consider her for further promotion, which has been put at naught by this
Court by setting aside the adverse remarks, however, the said Authority has not
taken any steps to complete the ACRs of the petitioner and neither the State had
taken any action against the concerned Reviewing Authorities nor the
Reviewing Authorities have taken any action against the Reporting Authorities
for not writing the ACRs of the petitioner within the prescribed period. Not
withstanding the said flaw on the part of the first respondent, the petitioner
regularly visited with a charge memo on flimsy grounds, which makes it clear
that all is not well with the State while coming to grant of promotion to the
cadre of IAS to the petitioner, which aspect has not been dealt with by the first
respondent.
19. The learned Senior Counsel points out that the aforesaid flaws
and position of the petitioner and vis-a-vis consideration of her name in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2023 selection list, which the petitioner is entitled to, by means of her devoted
deserved service has earned, required to be considered affirmatively by this
Court by allowing this writ petition and giving a direction to the first
respondent to forthwith recommend her name to the second respondent viz..,
Union Public Service Commission and also the Central Government for
appointing the petitioner in the cadre of IAS within a prescribed time frame as
otherwise, the petitioner, who is at the fag end of the career, would not see the
light of the day, as the first respondent would by its inaction, as like the above
circumstances, the petitioner would be deprived of the promotion to the cadre
of IAS to which he is duly and deservedly entitled to.
20. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner's ACRs could not be
written on the account of the charge memos that were issued to the petitioner,
which were quashed by this Court only on a later date and therefore, a delay
had envisaged in writing the petitioner's ACRs. Therefore, the said delay cannot
be attributed to any ill-will on the part of the first respondent against the
petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General proceeded to state that the
writing of ACRs is purely within the domain of the Reporting Authority and if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any ACR is not written for a particular period and not communicated to the
petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been vigilant and taken up the same with
the Reporting Authority, however, after quashment of the charge memos against
the petitioner, the petitioner had taken efforts to have the ACRs written, which
is under review as it requires to be reviewed in proper form as conferment of
IAS cannot be as a matter of routine, but based on the work of the petitioner. In
this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that merely
because of the adverse entries written by the Reviewing Authority has been
quashed, that would not stand in the way of the State in filing an appeal against
the order and this background, the petitioner cannot impose upon the State to
recommend the petitioner's name for consideration for conferment of IAS.
21. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit
that barring the above, the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy
Collector has not been approved and her probation has not been confirmed
towards which action has been sought for, for declaration of petitioner's
probation and till such time probation is declared, the case of the petitioner
cannot be recommended for appointment. Further, he submitted that the
petitioner has to be an approved probationer at the time when her name is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recommended for consideration and the petitioner not being an approved
probationer, her name could not be recommended or taken for consideration for
the year 2023. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Advocate
General that even with regard to the ACR, of the 99 months period as Deputy
Collector, about 52 months ACR for the petitioner is not available and without
reports for the said period being tabulated and considered, the case of the
petitioner cannot be considered for recommendation. Further, as on date when
the Government Order in G.O.(2D) No.223, Revenue & Disaster Management
Department, dated 21.08.2024 was passed including her name in the panel of
Deputy Collector for the year 2008-2009, the petitioner has not obtained the
ACRs for the crucial period and ACRs for 47 months is available in full, while
ACRs for 52 months are not available and, therefore, her name could not be
considered.
22. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General
that the appointment by promotion to the juniors of the petitioner cannot make
the petitioner claim the promotion as a mater of right as the said promotion is
given after taking into consideration all the aspect relating to an employee's
service and the juniors to the petitioner having cleared all the necessary stages
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of scrutiny, the petitioner having not fulfilled certain stages, cannot claim
equity or parity with her juniors, merely because she is senior in the cadre, more
so, when may actions were taken against her, which was an off-shoot of her
work, which cannot be put against the respondent, though the said charge
memos were quashed by this Court, the time lost cannot be solely be fastened
on the first respondent and the non consideration of the petitioner over and
above her juniors cannot be the basis to seek for recommendation and
subsequent promotion for conferment of IAS. Further, submitted that the
unfilled and unwritten ACRs and probation declaration order in the post of
Deputy Collector having not been completed, the case of the petitioner could
not be taken up for consideration even in the select list for the year 2023 and
once the rectification was made, the name of the petitioner would be taken for
consideration.
23. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent as
well as the other respondents and perused the documents available on record.
24. After careful consideration to the submission made, it is seen that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
though very many provisions of the Indian Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment
by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, are pressed into service, there is no quarrel
with any of the provisions in the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Equally, it is
not disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner with regard to
application of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations to the petitioner and infact,
it is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that applying
the aforesaid provisions to the case of the petitioner in tandem with the decision
in W.P.No.16862 of 2023, the petitioner's case has to be recommended along
with the recommendation already made by the other candidates, whose names
have been included in the Select List for the year 2023. It is borne out by record
from the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant to the present payer
of the petitioner for recommendation of the petitioner in the select list for the
year 2023 for appointment of the petitioner in the cadre of IAS, the petitioner
has been knocking the doors of the Tribunal and this Court to get her seniority
refixed in the appropriate position. The Tribunal was the first source of
direction for re-fixation of seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Junior
Assistant and Assistant. Thereafter, the petitioner at various times had moved
up the ladder and at the position of Deputy Collector her name was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
included in the panel for the year 2008-2009, which resulted in the petitioner
filing a writ petition before this Court for fixation of her seniority in the panel
for the year 2008-2009. The petitioner was also entitled for refixation of her
seniority in the post of Deputy Revenue Officer by including her name in the
panel for the year 2012, but erroneously her name was included only in the
panel for the year 2016.There is no dispute about the fact that a representation
was filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2016 for advancement of her seniority in
the post of Deputy Collector and Deputy Revenue Officer. Having receipt of
said representation, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration has not acted
on the said representation, which is clearly an abdication of duty on the part of
the Commissioner of Revenue Administration.
25. The first respondent without acting on the said representation
dated 27.12.2016, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration had issued a
charge memo dated 20.03.2017, which was challenged before this Court in
W.P.No.22472 and 22473 of 2018, and this Court had quashed the charge memo
vide its order dated 19.12.2019, issued a direction to the respondents to include
the name of the petitioner in the list of District Revenue Officers for the year
2016. Pursuant to which, the petitioner's seniority was refixed and the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was appointed as District Revenue Officer. However, once again the petitioner
had submitted her representation on 16.06.2020 and 08.02.2021, seeking for
refixation of seniority list by advancing the petitioner in the list of Deputy
Collector for the year 2008-2009 from 2010-2011. However, without
considering the same, once again, the charge memo's dated 24.02.2021 and
05.04.2021 were issued by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. It is
seen that as and when, the petitioner submitted representation for re-fixation of
seniority by advancing her name in the panel, the petitioner is issued with
charge memo, which the petitioner had challenged before this Court and infact,
the petitioner was successful in her every attempt. Following the same pattern,
the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.6390 of 2021, seeking for quashing the charge
memo dated 24.02.2021, which was also ended in her favour vide order dated
29.08.2022 and the W.P.No.10965 of 2021, seeking for quashment of the charge
memo, which also ended in favour of the petitioner by this Court. After the
petitions ended in her favour, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1539 of 2021, seeking
for a direction to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2016
along with the reminders dated 16.06.2020 and 08.02.2021 for inclusion of the
name of the petitioner in the panel of Deputy Collector for the year 2008-2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26. It is also to be noted that while the representation had been given
as early as in December 2016 and the said representation was not considered till
date. The petitioner was again given the charge momo which are all quashed by
this Court, by directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's
representation and pass appropriate orders. The Commissioner of Revenue
Administration ought to have been passed orders on the said representation of
the petitioner atleast after the orders of quashment of the charge memos passed
by this Court. It is submitted that even for passing orders on the representation,
the petitioner had to seek this Court intervention to pass orders on the
representation.
27. Even thereafter, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration
had kept the representation pending without passing any orders, and therefore,
again the petitioner have filed the W.P.No.16862 of 2023 before this Court,
seeking a direction for including her name in the panel of Deputy Collector for
the year 2008-2009 in the appropriate place, on par with her juniors and this
Court has passed the following order:
"23. As per the above judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
disciplinary proceedings ended in favour of the member, it is as
if the officer had not been subjected to any disciplinary
proceedings. Such view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled
to re-fixing the seniority in the cadre of the Deputy Collector by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
including her name for the year 2008-2009 and as a
consequence, the cadre of District Revenue Officer by re-fixing
the seniority for the panel of the year 2012. Mere subsequent
charge memo is not a bar to fix the seniority retrospectively in
respect of the post of the Deputy Collector and District
Revenue Officer. Such view of the matter, this Court is of the
view that merely because the authorities have not considered
that appeal and the appeal is pending, without processing the
same, the Petitioner cannot be non-suited in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petitioner has to succeed and the
petitioner is entitled to re-fixing the seniority retrospectively in
the cadre of Deputy Collector for the panel of the year 2008-
2009 in the appropriate position, i.e.. below her immediate
senior, S.Christy and above her immediate junior and also in
the cadre of District Revenue Officer by placing her in the
promotional panel of the year 2012 placing her below her
immediate senior.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered and the respondent
shall re-fix the seniority of the petitioner and pass appropriate
orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs."'
28. Pursuance of the above judgment dated 11.09.2023, it is a clear
direction to the Authority concerned to include the name of the petitioner in the
cadre of Deputy Collector in the panel of the year 2008-2009 in the appropriate
position and also in the cadre of District Revenue Officer by placing her in the
promotional panel of the year 2012, which have not been given effect by the
first respondent. However, even prior to the direction issued as early as the
charge memo on the petitioner was issued in the year 2017, which relates to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
some act of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2011, challenging which, the
petitioner had filed the W.P.Nos.22472 & 22473 of 2018 and this Court had
passed orders on the charge memo issued against the petitioner, and relevant
portion of the order is extracted herein under:
"18. This Court is thoroughly convinced that there is absolutely
no substance in the charge memo and an employee can never be
proceeded against for complying with the orders of a
Competent Court/Tribunal. It is the duty of the every officer to
comply with the orders of the Court and there is no necessity to
take the permission of the higher authority for implementing the
orders of the Court. The petitioner who was complying with the
directions given by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai
pursuant to the judgment passed by the Tribunal, cannot be
subjected to a departmental proceedings and therefore, the
charge memo issued against the petitioner requires interference
of this Court."
29. Following the aforesaid order, the order in W.P.No.16862 of 2023 had
came to be passed by issuing an affirmative direction to the Authority to refix
the seniority of the petitioner in the appropriate place, with regard to Deputy
Collector and District Revenue Officer and the said order has attained finality
and no appeal has been filed by the State. Even, in the year 2019, there was a
clear direction in W.P.No.22472 & 22473 of 2018, with regard to fixation of
seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of District Revenue Officers, against
which no appeal has been filed, and the said order also attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30. The relevant provisions of the Indian Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954, and Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which has been relied upon by the learned
Additional Advocate General as is extracted in the counter by the first
respondent is material and stares writ large on the first respondent against their
contention and for better appreciation, the relevant portion of the counter is
extracted hereunder:
"(1) Rule 4(1) (b) of the Indian Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954 "By promotion of a (substantive)
member of a State Civil Service"
(2) Rule 4(2) (b) of the Indian Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954 "the number of persons to be
recruited by each method shall be determined on each occasion
by the Central Government in consultation with the State
Government concerned"
(3) 6A(3) (i) till he is confirmed in the service.
(4) Rule 8(1) of the Indian Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1954 "The Central Government may, on
the recommendations of the State Government concerned and
in consultation with the Commission and in accordance with
such regulations as the Central Government may, after
consultation with the State Governments and the Commission,
from time to time, make, recruit to the Service persons by
promotion from amongst the substantive members of a State
Civil Service."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
As per regulation 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 "Each
Committee shall ordinarily meet every year and prepare a list of
such members of the State Civil Service as are held by them to
be suitable for promotion to the Service. The number of
members of the State Civil Service to be included in the list
shall be determined by the Central Government in consultation
with the State Government concerned and shall not exceed the
number of substantive vacancies as on the first day of January
of the year in which the meeting is held, in the posts available
for them under rule 9 of the recruitment rules. The date and
venue of the meeting of the Committee to make the selection
shall be determined by the Commission:
Provided that no meeting of the Committee shall be held,
and no list for the year in question shall be prepared when,
(a) there are no substantive vacancies as on the first day of
January of the year in the posts available for the members of the
State Civil Service under rule 9 of the recruitment rules; or
(b) the Central Government in consultation with the State
Government decides that no recruitment shall be made during
the year to the substantive vacancies as on the first day of
January of the year in the posts available for the members of the
State Civil Service under nude 9 of the recruitment rules:
Provided further that where no meeting of the Committee
could be held during a year for any reason other than that
provided for in the first proviso, as and when the Committee
meets again, the select list shall be prepared separately for each
year during which the Committee could not meet, as on the 31
December of each year;
Explanation:- In the case of joint cadres, a separate select list
shall be prepared in respect of each State Civil Service;
As per regulation 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the Committee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
shall consider for inclusion to the said list, the cases of
members of the State Civil Services in the order of a seniority
in that service of a number which is equal to three times the
number referred in sub-regulation (1):
Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of a
State where the total number of eligible officers is less than
three times the maximum permissible size of the Select List and
in such a case the Committee shall consider all the eligible
officers:
Provided further that in computing the number for inclusion
in the field of consideration, the number of officers referred to
in sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded:
Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case
of a member of the State Civil Service unless, on the first day
of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared he is
substantive in the State Civil Service and has completed not
less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating
or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other
post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State
Government:
Provided also that in respect of any released Emergency
Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned Officers
appointed to the State Civil Service, eight years of continuous
service as required under the preceding proviso shall be counted
from the deemed date of their appointment to that service,
subject to the condition that such officers shall be eligible for
consideration if they have completed not less than four years of
actual continuous service, on the first day of the January of the
year for which the select list is prepared, in the post of Deputy
Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent
thereto by the State Government
Explanation- The powers of the State Government under the
third proviso to this sub-regulation shall be exercised in relation
to the members of the State Civil Service of a constituent State,
by the Government of that State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
As per regulation 5(3) of the Indian Administrative Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the Committee
shall not consider the cases of the members of the State Civil
Service who ha attained the age of 54 years on the first day of
January of the year for which the Select List is prepared:
Provided that a member of the State Civil Service whose
name appears in the Select List (prepared for the earlier year)
before the date of the meeting of the Committee and who has
not been appointed to the Service only because he was included
(provisionally in that Select List) shall be considered for
inclusion in the fresh list to be prepared by the Committee, even
if he has in the meanwhile attained the age of fifty four years:
Provided further that a member of the State Civil Service
who has attained the age of fifty-four years on the first day of
January of the year for which the select list is prepared shall be
considered by the Committee, if he was eligible for
consideration on the first day of January of the year or of any of
the years immediately preceding the year in which such meeting
is but could not be considered as no meeting of the Committee
was held during such preceding year or years under item (b) of
the proviso to sub-regulation (1).
The Government of India, Department of Personnel and
Training had clarified that the upper age limit will be 56 years
both State Civil Service and Non-State Civil Service officers
vide Office Memorandum F.No.14015/30/2015-AIS-I dated
20.03.2015 from Select List 2015 onwards."
31. There is no quarrel made on behalf of the first respondent with regard
to the applicability of Rules and Regulations and infact it does not the stand of
the first respondent. The petitioner has not fulfilled the prescribed conditions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and completion of 8 years of service in the post of District Revenue Officer and
also the petitioner is within the extended age of 56 years as provided in the
Circular of Government of India and Department of Personnel & Training in
Office Memorandum F.No.14015/30/2015-AIS-I dated 20.03.2015, which is
applicable from the Select List 2015 onwards. Therefore, on the Select List of
2020, the upper age limit is 56 years for re-commendation and the petitioner
had fulfilled the said criteria. However, the contentions raised by the first
respondent borders on the inaction of the petitioner not submitting the self-
assessment in appropriate time and doing it belatedly, which prevented the
ACRs form being written and submitted on time. However, it is to be pointed
out that the stand taken by the first respondent is only to extricate itself from
the rigours of the wrong which is done to the petitioner in not writing the ACRs
of the petitioner at appropriate time.
32. As per the counter which has already been extracted, wherein as per
the time frame, the ACRs of the employees, such as the petitioner, have to be
written by the Reporting Authority and the Reviewing Authority. In the said
advisory, though self-assessment by the Officer is provided, which is not a
mandate, but only a guidance to the Reporting Authority to assess the work of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the individual, as seen from the eyes of the officer, which could be visualised
by the Reporting Authority before putting in the remarks on the said officer.
However, non-filing of self assessment within the period prescribed dos not
preclude the Reporting Authority from recording the remarks against the said
officer and placing the same before the Reviewing Authority. Infact, a duty is
cast on the Reporting Authority, to have noted remarks about the petitioner in
the ACR of the petitioner every year and place it for review before the
Reviewing Authority. However, the Reporting Authority had renounced its
responsibilities by noting the remarks of the petitioner in the ACR and had kept
silent. It is to be pointed out that mere issuance of a charge memo to the
employee does not preclude the Reporting Authority from recording the
remarks in the ACR of the petitioner. The first respondent cannot take shelter
under the charge memos to claim that he could not record the ACR of the
petitioner at the relevant point of time, as the dereliction on the part of the first
respondent has put the career of the petitioner in peril, which prompted her to
approach this Court at each instance when an injustice has been meted out to
her.
33. This Court by perusing the records from the period 16.06.2021 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
31.03.2022, while the ACR for the petitioner was written, in which the
Reporting Authority has entered that the petitioner is a very hard working
officer and that her contribution in the Special Revenue is commendable and
had given an overall grading of 9.5 out of 10, however, the Reviewing
Authority has not only disagreed with the remarks of the Reporting Authority,
but also recorded that the petitioner does not deserve any future promotions.
The said adverse remarks were put in issue before this Court in W.P.No.27493
of 2023 and this Court has set-aside the said adverse remarks recorded against
the petitioner. It is to be pointed out that the adverse remarks have been written
against the petitioner for reasons best known to the first respondent, yet for
certain period of time, the first respondent is not able to have the ACRs of the
petitioner written, which is shown to be the ground on which her name could
not be recommended for being included in the Select List for the panel of the
year 2023. One other aspect in the Select List of the year 2021 and 2022, in
which persons, junior to the petitioner have been appointed in the cadre of IAS
by conferment.
34. The list of persons who have been conferred and appointed in the IAS
have been given by the petitioner and even on perusal of the same reveals that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the persons who have been recommended for conferment of IAS for inclusion
of the names for the year 2021 and 2022 are persons who are holding posts
within the City of Madras in various positions. Though other persons who are
senior to the petitioner were also available and within the zone of
consideration. However, their candidature have not been considered. This Court
is not venturing into the non-selection of the said persons, who are seniors to
them have been included in the Select List as it would be within the knowledge
of the State with regard to suitability, credibility and merit, which would be
reflected in the ACR. In the present case, the petitioner is one such person, who
is not been selected that can be seen as the entire career record is not only
before this Court but it has been spread wide through the various writ petitions
filed by the petitioner and the orders passed by this Court. The non-selection of
her name from being included only could be attributed to the fact that she has
been absolved from all charges which were thrown upon her by the State and
other Authorities. Therefore, barring the above, the only grievance which can
be espoused against the petitioner are the contentions, which have been
advanced before this Court. This Court, even for a moment is not against the
inclusion of the persons in the Select List of the year 2021 and 2022 nor is
castigating their candidature, but is only pointing out the non-inclusion of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
name of the petitioner could also be associated with her not being in a post
within the City of Madras or within close proximity to the power centre.
35. It is further seen that the first respondent in its counter had claimed
that it reserves it right to challenge the order passed in W.P.No.27493 of 2023,
which were passed on 13.12.2024, however, as on date, there is no stigma
attached with the petitioner for being considered and for being recommended
for conferment of IAS by inclusion of her name in the select list for 2023. Even
otherwise filing of an appeal would not be a deterrent to consider the name of
the petitioner for being included in the selection list for the year 2023 unless
the order of this Court in the above said writ petition is stayed or set aside.
Therefore, the first respondent claimed that the ACR entry which has been set-
aside by this Court is appealable and the right is still available with the first
respondent, cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner of her rightful
consideration to being appointed in the cadre of IAS by conferment. The other
contention advanced on behalf of the first respondent for non-consideration of
the name of the petitioner for inclusion in the select list for the year 2023 is
due to her probation not being approved yet in the cadre of Deputy Collector. It
is the stand of the first respondent that unless the said probation is approved,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner's candidature cannot be considered is nothing but a whimsical and
fanciful reason to deny the promotional benefit to the petitioner.
36. Declaration and approval of probation is only for the purpose of
finding out the suitability and acceptability of an employee in the said post for
further continuance. The petitioner had been posted as Deputy Collector in the
year 2012 itself and thereafter, through a series of petitions, the petitioner also
got absolved from all the wrong committed to her by getting necessary
directions by this Court for refixation of seniority for the post of Deputy
Collector and also the District Revenue Officer in W.P.No.16862 of 2023,
which order has been allowed to attain finality. When this Court has approved
the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of District Revenue Officer and
District Collector by refixation of seniority and inclusion of her name in the
panel of the year 2008-2009 and 2012 respectively, it clearly signifies that the
work discharged by the petitioner has found to be suitable and acceptable and
the merit of the petitioner in the discharge of the work was not put in issue by
the respondent before this Court. Further, the merit of the petitioner also stands
fortified by the fact that the Reporting Authority in her ACR for the period
16.06.2021 to 31.03.2021 has clearly recorded her appreciation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
commendable work done by the petitioner and had given an overall grading of
9.5 out of 10. Such being the case, it is contended that the probation of the
petitioner had not been approved in the cadre of Deputy Collector and unless
the same is done and a proceedings is passed, her candidature cannot be
considered for recommendation in the Select List for the year 2023 for
conferment of IAS cadre is nothing but a block of the first respondent is to
prevent the petitioner's name from being considered.
37. In this regard, it is to be pointed out that as aforesaid, probation is to
find out the suitability and acceptability of the employee in a particular post and
approval of probation is a formality which merely records the suitability of the
employee. However, in the case on hand, the petitioner having been allowed to
work and her ACRs have also reflects the suitability of the petitioner in the said
post, the mere fact that the proceedings has not been passed by approving the
probation of the petitioner cannot be a ground to reject the candidature of the
petitioner for being recommended for conferment of IAS by inclusion of her
name in the select list. The first respondent is nowhere questioned the said
suitability or acceptability of the petitioner in the said post but it only harping
on the proceedings which is a formality, with regard to the continuance of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employee, viz., the petitioner in the post of Deputy Collector by approving the
probation. When it is not the case of the first respondent that the petitioner is
not suitable to hold the post, the non-issuance of a proceeding approving the
probation of the petitioner cannot be held against the petitioner and the
continuance of the petitioner in the post of Deputy Collector to the post of
District Revenue Officer including refixation of seniority, would have to be
deemed to have resulted in the approval of probation of the petitioner in the
post of Deputy Collector, even if no proceedings has been passed, as by efflux
of time, the continuance of the petitioner in the post of Deputy Collector and
further promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer, which has been
approved by this Court and which also attained finality would only to be
construed, that there had been implied approval of the probation of the
petitioner, though no formal proceeding has been issued. This could alone be
the logical conclusion that could be arrived at as any other conclusion would be
against all cannons of logic and would be nothing but travesty of justice
perpetrated against the petitioner.
38. It is also further seen that the contentions raised by the first
respondent is merely aids targeted to scuttle the progress of the petitioner to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
next higher post of IAS by conferment by inclusion of her name in the year
2023, which is sought to achieved by the first respondent, as already been done
for the years 2021 and 2022 by movement of persons junior to the petitioner to
the coveted category of IAS. The petitioner has 40 years of unblemished service
and at each and every instance of her promotion to the next level has been
targeted by the State from which the petitioner had come out through her
perseverance by resorting to legal means. From the counter affidavit, the first
respondent has stated that the 3rd respondent/UPSC by its communication
dated 19.01.2024, had called upon the Selection Committee to convene the
meeting latest by 31.05.2024 and send the Selection List for the year 2023 and
pursuant to the said communication, the first respondent is bound to send the
Select List for the year 2023 by 31.05.2024. It is the further stand taken by the
first respondent that the seniority of the petitioner has been refixed for the post
of Deputy Collector on 21.08.2024, however, the seniority has been refixed in
the cadre of District Revenue Officer, as she has not fulfilled the qualifications
and the ACR is complete and her probation in the post of Deputy Collector has
been declared. Though it is the stand taken by the first respondent and that all
the particulars including ACRs of the respective officers, whose names are
recommended have to be sent to UPSC while finalising the select list, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner having fulfilled the aforesaid prescription, her name was not sent to
UPSC. Whileso, the first respondent claims that the details was sent to UPSC
by 31.05.2024, however, the date on which, the Select List, if any, that had been
forwarded to UPSC had not been divulged, to this Court.
39. On perusal of the entire records reveals that vide the interim order
dated 21.10.2024, a direction was issued by this Court to the first respondent to
take action on the orders passed by this Court with regard to refixation of
seniority, more particularly, the order dated 11.09.2023 in W.P.No.16862 of
2023 and the matter was heard on the next date of hearing, there was no
information forthwith, which prompted this Court to pass an status quo on
30.10.2024. Thereafter, a miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner to
implead the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein as party respondents to the present
writ petition. On the apprehension that the first respondent may try to bypass
the petitioner by not including the name of the petitioner, and therefore, the
petitioner sought the indulgence of this Court to implead the 2nd and 3rd
respondents so that no further orders would be passed on the heels of the order
of this Court. This Court impleaded the 2nd and 3rd respondents for the sake of
interest of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
40. It is further to be pointed out that though the third respondent had
fixed 31.05.2024 as the last date to send the select list for the year 2023,
however, nothing prevented the first respondent to refix the seniority of the
petitioner in the post of Deputy Collector and also District Revenue Officer and
include her name in the select list for the year 2023. However, without refixing
the seniority of the petitioner in the post of District Revenue Officer, thereby
committing contempt of Court by flouting the orders of this Court. The first
respondent has come before this Court and is trying to shield itself by pointing
finger against the petitioner that the petitioner has not submitted self
assessment and that the probation of the petitioner in the post of Deputy
Collector has not been approved. One other aspects, which transpires from the
counter affidavit is that on the date when the select list for the year 2023 has
been forwarded to UPSC, it is the stand taken by the first respondent that the
petitioner was not armed with any orders of this Court for including her name.
The said stand taken by the first respondent is totally contrary to the materials
available on record and also an act in contempt of this Court as the order dated
11.09.2023, which has attained finality and her representation based on the said
order was also available on the files of the first respondent. However without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
acting on the said order as also the representation of the petitioner, the first
respondent has not considered the said representation. The first respondent has
the temerity to come before this Court and put it on record that on the date
when the select list for the year 2023 was sent, the petitioner was not possessed
any orders for inclusion of her name in the panel for the post of District
Revenue Officer for the year 2013-2014.
41. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first
respondent by relying upon the counter that the person immediately senior to
the petitioner viz., one Mr.Christy, though was kept in the panel of 2012, but
was later pushed to the panel of the year 2013 and was recommended and
appointed to the post only by adhering to the panel of the year 2013, and
therefore the petitioner cannot claim for the District Revenue Officer in the
panel of the year 2012 and given appointment accordingly. Though such stand
taken in the counter and also contended by the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the first respondent, however, it is pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has not taken
any steps to have portion of the order passed in W.P.16862 of 2023 reviewed
and corrected and the present submission is made only to drag on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings of the promotion and appointment to which she is duly entitled to
and is only purely due to the fault of the first respondent. The said contention
has been taken by the first respondent for the first time before this Court and
such a contention was not advanced in W.P.No.16862 of 2023. However, it is to
be noted that the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.16862 of 2023
though was to place the petitioner in the panel for District Revenue Officer of
the year 2012, but in addition this Court also directed the petitioner should be
placed below Mr.Christy, who is the immediate senior and the said Mr.Christry
was initially placed in the panel of the year 2012, but was later moved to the
panel of the year 2013, and also bringing it to the notice of this Court in
WP.No.16862 of 2023, had led to this situation. However, the said error cannot
be entertained by this Court to exercise its jurisdiction, as the directions issued
by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.16862 of 2023 could
be read harmoniously to grant the relief to the petitioner and at the same time
not diluting the orders passed in W.P.No.16862 of 2023 by this Court invoking
its inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction by directing the first respondent to
fix the seniority of the petitioner immediately below Mr.Christy in the panel of
the year 2013. It is also found that the petitioner is also eligible to claim all
monetary benefits on account of revision of seniority in the post of District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Revenue Officer.
42. As already pointed out, it is the duty of the State to approve the
probation and make necessary entries in the ACR and it is not for an individual
officers to run behind the State to have their probation approved and their ACR
filled. When the State has abdicated its responsibilities and is trying to sabotage
the career of the petitioner, this Court cannot be a mute spectator to the said act
as all along, the petitioner has been targeted from being pointed to the post of
IAS for the reasons best known to the State. This Court can very well attribute
umpteen reasons for the State trying to scuttle the appointment of the petitioner
in the cadre of IAS but this Court is not writing anything on paper further.
43. It is to be further noted that the communication dated 09.12.2024
given by UPSC, which has been addressed to the Government of Tamil Nadu
and other communication dated 21.01.2025 addressed to the learned Senior
Panel Counsel for UPSC have been placed before this Court by circulation and
the learned counsel for UPSC would state that this letter has already been
circulated to the other side also, though the communication is addressed to the
Chief Secretary to the Government. The present case filed by the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has sought for the action taken on behalf of the State Government, by
specifically pointing out that a portion of the order has been complied with,
while the other portion of the order pertaining to refixation of seniority in the
post of District Revenue Officer is yet to be complied with and has also sought
for the view of the State on the aforesaid refixation. For better appreciation, the
same can be extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"F. No. 6/18/2024-AIS
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069.
9 December, 2024
To,
The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
[Kind Attn: Ms. Reeta Harish Thakkar, Secretary (Public & Rehabilitation
Department)]
Sub: Selection Committee Meeting to prepare the Select List of 2023 for promotion of
SCS officers to the IAS of Tamil Nadu Cadre-Reg
I am directed to refer to Government of Tamil Nadu's D.O. letter No. 202/A2/2024-6
dated 16.11.2024 on the above mentioned subject and to say that the following deficiencies
have been observed:
(i) In the covering letter, it has been indicated that as per Section 17 A(1) of the PC
(Amendment) Act, 2018, the Government have granted prior permission to the Directorate of
Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) Chennai to include the name of MS. Gandhimathi as
additional accused in Regular case no. RC 236/2021/PUB/HQ vide Government letter dated
25.06.2022. It has also been indicated that DVAC has requested to accord sanction to
prosecute Smt. Gandhimathi based on the outcome of the investigation report in RC
236/2021/PUB/HQ and recommended by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance Commission on
05.01.2024 and it is under process. Since, it has been more than 11 months since the
recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Vigilance Commission, the State Government is
requested to confirm the current status of the case.
(ii) Further, the integrity of Ms. Gandhimathi has been withheld stating that the Director,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in his letter dated 19.03.2024, has informed that two charge
sheets separately with regard to the allegations of tender irregularities in Greater Chennai City
Corporation and Coimbatore Municipal Corporation were filed against ThiruS.P.Velumani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
formerly Minister for Municipal Administration, Rural Development and Special Programme
Implementation, Government of Tamil Nadu, now MLA, Thondamuthur Assembly
Constituency and others before the Learned Special Court for the cases under Prevention of
Corruption Act, Chennai and assigned as CC Nos.225/2024 and 226/2024. The State
Government is requested to clarify whether Ms. Gandhimathi has also been included as
an accused in CC Nos.225/2014 and 226/2024. If yes, the case needs to be indicated in
the statement of criminal proceedings.
(iii) It is observed that the officers in the cadre of Deputy collectors in the Select List of 2006-
07 have been promoted to DROs of the Select List of 2013-14 whereas Shri R.Rajendran who
also appears at S.No. 16 in cadre of Deputy Collectors in the Select List of 2006-07 and has
been confirmed on 07.02.2016 with continuous service since 07.02.2014 (ie. more than years)
has been promoted to DROs of the Select List of 2016-17 and accordingly, has been excluded
from the zone of consideration. The State Government is requested to furnish the reasons
for placing the officer in the Select List of 2016-17 of DROs and reason for subsequent
exclusion from the zone of consideration.
(iv) The State Government have further informed that vide judgement dated 11.09.2023 in
WP No.16862/2023 filed by Ms.Saradha Rukmani, the Hon'ble High Court had directed the
Government of Tamil Nadu to refix the seniority of Ms SaradhaRukmani in the cadre of
Deputy Collector and Divisional Revenue Officers. In compliance of the same, the name of
Ms.Saradha Rukmani has been included in the cadre of Deputy Collectors of the year 2008-09
at S.No.144A, below Shri S.Christy vide GO dated 21.08.2024. However, the State
Government have further informed that the name of Ms. Saradha Rukmani is yet be refixed in
the cadre of Divisional Revenue Officers. From the above, it may be seen that there are clear
directions of the Hon'ble High Court in this regard and the State Government has already
complied it in part. It appears that Ms. Saradha Rukmani if included in the list of DROs will
become eligible for consideration for the Select List of 2023.
In view of this, the State Government may be requested to clarify whether they are
going to implement the Orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 11.09.2023 or not."
44. From the above it is evident that sitting on the directions issued by
this Court without complying with it, the State, for reasons best known to it had
forwarded the names of other persons, who are juniors to the petitioner. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reason for such act on the part of the State has not been spelt out for whimsical
reasons such as ACRs is yet to be written and probation is to be approved
dating back to a decade have been put against the petitioner to reject the case of
the petitioner and keep her name from being recommended to be included in the
Select List for the year 2023. It is not as if the State was not aware of the
present case pending before this Court and also the various directions issued by
this Court. Further, the State had accepted the order passed in W.P.No.16862 of
2019 dated 11.09.2023 and refixed the seniority of the petitioner in the post of
Deputy Collector, but has not taken the requisite steps to refix the seniority of
the petitioner in the post of District Revenue Officer. The only query that passes
the mind of this Court, is whether the reasons put forth are true reasons or to
defeat the rights of the petitioner from being conferred IAS, the State is acting
prejudicial to the welfare of the petitioner. This Court, though has posed the
question to itself for which it very well known the answer, but this Court does
not want to spell that answer in black and white. When the first respondent has
complied with portion of the order, and the other portion of the order also has to
be complied with immediately so that the petitioner could relish the benefits. It
is not for the State to defeat the rights of the petitioner by sleeping over the
matter of refixation of seniority for reasons, which is purely attributable to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
governance of the State and could, by no stretch, be attributed to the petitioner.
The State cannot abdicate its responsibility in not acting properly and diligently
on the orders of this Court and throw the blame on the petitioner by merely
stating that it was the act of the petitioner which has led to the present position.
45. Infact, it is further noted that after the letter written to the Chief
Secretary to the Government dated 09.12.2024, in the absence of any
communication from the State, UPSC had not acted on the proposal and had
addressed a communication to the Senior Panel Counsel calling for the requisite
details with regard to the case of refixation of the petitioner's seniority as also
the status of the present case.
46. Only to safeguard the interests of the petitioner, this Court had
impleaded the UPSC as the 3rd respondent, which clearly reveals the
forethought of this Court in passing the said order.
47. Once, it has come to the notice of this Court, that the Authorities, for
extraneous considerations resort to victimisation of its employees, inspite of the
employees being honest and straight forward and the State should act as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
model employer to other, however, brushing aside the same, the State had
embarked upon a victimising attitude in the present case, which made the
petitioner to run from pillar to post to get herself absolved of the delinquencies.
The petitioner had not only discharged her work well, but the petitioner also
received the appreciation from her Reporting Authorities, who have given her a
superfluous assessment, which clearly shows that the petitioner has been
targeted for other reasons and this Court hopes and trust that henceforth, the
State shall see to it that none of the officers suffer the wrath of persons merely
for certain extraneous reasons which are makeshift reasons shown to be
connected with the employment of the said officer as that would not only boost
the image of the State, but also would act as a antidote for the unscrupulous
authorities from scuttling the progress of individual employees, who discharged
their work, without fear or favour and thereby uplift the image of the
Government in the eyes of the general public.
48. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed
and accordingly, the same is allowed with the following directions:
(i) The first respondent, after refixing the seniority of
the petitioner below Mr.Christy in the cadre of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
District Revenue Officer and upon completing the
ACRs of the petitioner in the said cadre as also the
earlier cadres, is directed to include the name of the
petitioner in the Select List for the year 2023 and
forward the same to the second and third respondents
namely, The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions and the Union Public Service Commission
and the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
(ii) On receipt of the Select List for the year 2023
from the first respondent, the 2nd and 3rd respondents
are directed to consider the candidature of the
petitioner, recommended by the first respondent for
appointment to the cadre of IAS and pass appropriate
orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period
of three weeks from the date of receipt of such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recommendation.
(iii) There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
17.02.2025
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
jd
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of
Personnel and Training), New Delhi -1.
3. The Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi 69.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.,
jd
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
