AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Name of
Department",CAO,AO,AAO,Total,"3 times
Combined
Cadre
Strength","Departmental
Representations as
on
15.06.2012(Crucial
Date)","No. of
persons
sponsored","Over
Representation
Social
Welfare",1,3,32,36,108,96(+12 included),25,"13(not
included)
Class,Method of Appointment,,,,,,,
Class IV,"(i) Recruitment by transfer from among the
holders of the posts in the category of Sub
Treasury Officers Grade I and Superintendents
Grade I in the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts
Offices.",,,,,,,
,Or,,,,,,,
,"(ii) Recruitment by transfer from among the
holders of the posts of Superintendents,
Accountants, Commercial Accountants or
Auditors borne on the Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service in the scale of pay applicable to
Superintendents as above or from among
persons holding similar supervisory posts
carrying scale of pay not less than that of
Superintendents in any other service.
(G.O.Ms.No. 903 Fin(T&A) Dept. dated
13.08.90)",,,,,,,
to take into account that no such Department should have a representation of more than three times the combined cadre strength of the Junior,,,,,,,,
Accounts Officer, Senior Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in that Department. This guideline is again subject to availability of",,,,,,,,
candidates. If qualified candidates from other departments are not available, obviously this guideline need not be followed, which is apparent from",,,,,,,,
paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No. 481 dated 10.09.1997. Only where eligible quota, such vacant posts can be filled up by selecting candidates from",,,,,,,,
Sub-Treasury Officers Grade I and Superintendent Grade I in the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices.,,,,,,,,
Referring to the above, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the case on hand, as per the said guideline",,,,,,,,
issued in G.O.Ms.No. 481, when the other Departments were not duly represented as against 60%, the upper limit of three times of cadre strength",,,,,,,,
in that particular Department cannot be made applicable. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the",,,,,,,,
petitioners ought to have been included in the panel.,,,,,,,,
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents and Mr. Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel appearing for",,,,,,,,
respondents 4 to 29, would submit that the said G.O.Ms.No. 481, which is only a guideline, is not applicable as of now, because subsequently the",,,,,,,,
rule itself came to be amended by G.O.Ms.No. 335, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts-1) Department, dated 17.06.2004 giving retrospective",,,,,,,,
effect from 15.06.2002. The learned Counsel would further submit that the Division Bench had an occasion to consider the said amendment and,,,,,,,,
the Division Bench was of the view that such amendment cannot be made applicable to the appointment which had already been made prior to the,,,,,,,,
issuance of the said G.O. The learned Counsel would further point out that the Division Bench has categorically issued a direction that in respect of,,,,,,,,
future appointments, the amended rules alone shall be applicable. The learned Counsel would refer to paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Division Bench",,,,,,,,
judgment, which reads as follows:",,,,,,,,
The order of the Tribunal was passed on 27.02.2002 and the initial panel for the year 2001-2002 was prepared after such date. The direction,,,,,,,,
issued by the Tribunal had not been challenged by the Government. It was therefore expected of the Government to follow the direction of the,,,,,,,,
Tribunal and if such direction was not followed, obviously the panel was contrary to the direction issued by the Tribunal. Therefore, when",,,,,,,,
contempt proceedings were initiated, it was open to the Department to rectify the mistakes in the earlier list. The persons who were originally",,,,,,,,
included in the panel and subsequently deleted have not specifically included in the panel and subsequently deleted have not specifically challenged,,,,,,,,
such drawal of the subsequent list either by amending the writ petition or by filing independent Original Application at that stage. Subsequent list,,,,,,,,
has been given effect to and become operative. In such view of the matter, in the absence of specific challenge to the subsequent list, it would not",,,,,,,,
be appropriate to issue any direction for quashing such subsequent list. The appointments made in the year 2001-2002, as per the revised list",,,,,,,,
drawn in 2002, having not been specifically challenged by the persons affected and, therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the",,,,,,,,
appointments made as per such lists.,,,,,,,,
The contention is to the effect that the rules, as presently amended, should now be applied and therefore the appointments should be quashed.",,,,,,,,
Even though some provisions of the amended rules have been retrospectively applied, it cannot be said that the amended rules envisage that",,,,,,,,
appointments having been already made should be disturbed on the basis of such amended rules. In our opinion, the provisions of the amended",,,,,,,,
rules would not be applicable to the list which was finalised as per the observation made by the Tribunal. However, the appointments after",,,,,,,,
introduction of the amended rules obviously have to be made keeping in view the provisions contained in the amended rules.,,,,,,,,
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of with the observation that the appointments to be made hereafter should be on the",,,,,,,,
basis of the amended Rules. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of, subject of the aforesaid observations and directions.",,,,,,,,
Mr. Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 29 would submit that insofar as the Social Welfare Department is concerned,",,,,,,,,
25 candidates including the petitioners, were sponsored by the third respondent to the second respondent. The crucial date for inclusion in the",,,,,,,,
panel was 15.06.2012. As on the crucial date, there were 19 officers from the Department of Social Welfare already working in the cadre of",,,,,,,,
Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in the Treasury Department. Therefore, there were only 12 remaining",,,,,,,,
vacancies to be filled up for the year 2012-2013 from the Social Welfare Department. That is why, out of the 25 persons sponsored by the third",,,,,,,,
respondent, only 12 were included in the panel and 13 persons, including the petitioners herein, were omitted. The learned counsel for respondents",,,,,,,,
4 to 29 would further submit that this has been done in tune with the directions issued by the Division Bench in the judgment cited supra.,,,,,,,,
I have considered the above submissions. As per the third proviso to Rule 3(g) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and,,,,,,,,
Accounts Services, it is crystal clear that no Department shall have a representation of more than three times the combined cadre strength of posts",,,,,,,,
of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in each Department. This statutory rule was brought into being by",,,,,,,,
G.O.Ms.No. 335, Finance (T & A I) Department, dated 17.06.2004, giving retrospective effect from 15.06.2002. As of now, for the present",,,,,,,,
panel, this proviso is certainly applicable about which there can be no doubt. But the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as",,,,,,,,
already I have stated, would place much reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 481 dated 10.09.1997. This Government Order is only administrative guidelines",,,,,,,,
issued which cannot have overriding effect over the statutory provisions. Statutory rule was amended as per G.O.Ms.No. 335, Finance (T & A I)",,,,,,,,
Department, dated 17.06.2004 subsequently. This was well considered by the Division Bench in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment, and",,,,,,,,
the Division Bench has categorically stated that in the case before the Division Bench, the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 481 along with the Rule",,,,,,,,
which stood unamended should have been followed, because the recruitment was made prior to coming into force of G.O.Ms.No. 335. But the",,,,,,,,
Division Bench has categorically held that in respect of future recruitments it is only the amended rule which shall be made applicable. As directed,,,,,,,,
by the Division Bench, if we look into the amended Rule, viz. the third proviso to Rule 3(g) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries",,,,,,,,
and Accounts Services, it is crystal clear that Social Welfare Department cannot have more than 3 times the cadre strength. Admittedly, already",,,,,,,,
there were 96 persons working in the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer. The three times of cadre",,,,,,,,
strength is only 108. Therefore, only 12 persons can be recruited by transfer from the Social Welfare Department. Thus, in my considered opinion,",,,,,,,,
the petitioners have been rightly not included in the panel. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that as per G.O.Ms.No.,,,,,,,,
481 the petitioners ought to have been included in the panel cannot be accepted because, this guideline cannot be enforced as against the statutory",,,,,,,,
provision which was amended by means of G.O.Ms.No. 335.,,,,,,,,
The learned Senior Counsel would nextly contend that if the aforesaid ratio (40:60) cannot be followed for want of qualified persons from Sub,,,,,,,,
Treasury Offices and Superintendent in the Treasuries and in the Treasuries and Accounts Department, the said reserved vacancies shall be filled in",,,,,,,,
by recruitment by transfer from the posts specified in item (ii) in Col. 2 in the Table under the rule and vice versa. The learned Senior Counsel,,,,,,,,
would submit that if only the total cadre strength of all the Departments which do fall in the feeder category is taken into account, then, it can be",,,,,,,,
measured whether all the Departments put together have got the 60% or not. This argument does not pursue me at all. The proviso clearly says,,,,,,,,
that if any vacancy which is ear-marked for other Departments could not be filled up for want of eligible candidates, the same needs to be filled up",,,,,,,,
only by recruiting the officials in the Treasury Department. The third proviso is applicable only to other Departments other than the Treasuries and,,,,,,,,
Pay and Accounts Offices. A plain reading of this proviso would clearly indicate the same. Further the Division Bench in paragraph-14 has held,,,,,,,,
that only where eligible candidates are not available to fill up the posts, i.e., 60% quota, such vacant posts can be filled up by selecting candidates",,,,,,,,
from Sub-Treasury Officers Grade I and Superintendent Grade I in the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices. Thus, in this case, so far as the",,,,,,,,
Social Welfare Department is concerned, such Department has been sufficiently represented by including 12 persons in the panel so as to make the",,,,,,,,
cadre strength at 108. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance regarding the inclusion of respondents 5 to 29.",,,,,,,,
The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the candidates who are working in other Departments other than the Social Welfare,,,,,,,,
Department ought to have been included in the panel. For this, in my considered opinion, if any other candidate who is working in any Department",,,,,,,,
other than the Department of Treasuries and Pay and Accounts and Social Welfare Department, is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in",,,,,,,,
the panel as against the 60% quota, it is for him to work out. I only say that the petitioners herein cannot have any grievance regarding the non-",,,,,,,,
inclusion of candidates in any other Department. As already pointed out, so far as Social Welfare Department is concerned, they are entitled to",,,,,,,,
have 108 persons working in the Treasury Department and by including 12 names, that quota has been completed. Therefore 13 persons,",,,,,,,,
including the petitioners herein, could not be included though the third respondent had sponsored their names. Merely because the third respondent",,,,,,,,
had sponsored their names, it cannot be held that they are entitled for being included in the panel.",,,,,,,,
The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 29 would rely on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 22658 of 2006,,,,,,,,
dated 17.08.2010. In that case also, a person who was working in the Social Welfare Department challenged G.O.Ms.No. 335 for non-inclusion",,,,,,,,
of her name in the panel for promotion. Taking a similar view as I have taken hereinabove, the learned single Judge (Hon''ble Mr. Justice N. Paul",,,,,,,,
Vasanthakumar), by order dated 17.08.2010, has dismissed the writ petition, upholding the amendment. Thus, looking at the grounds raised by the",,,,,,,,
petitioners, from any angle, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned panel. I also hold that the impugned panel has been prepared",,,,,,,,
strictly in accordance with Rule 3(g) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services, and in accordance with the",,,,,,,,
directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra. Thus I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned,,,,,,,,
panel. In view of all the above, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed, and the interim direction issued by this Court shall stand",,,,,,,,
vacated automatically. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.",,,,,,,,