AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Suguna, J.—Initially, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1919/2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order
of the first respondent dated 26.4.2001 issued in G.O.(D) No. 351, Home (Pol.V) Department. Now, the same has been transferred to the file of
this Hon''ble Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 32807 of 2005.
The petitioner was appointed as a steno-typist on a temporary basis with effect from 2.9.1982. In the year 1984, the Government issued
G.O.Ms. No. 996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22.9.1984 absorbing all the candidates, who were
working on temporary basis as on 25.6.1984. Basing on this, the petitioner''s services were also regularised in the cadre of steno-typist with effect
from 25.6.1984. That apart, the petitioner was selected as a typist in the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in
November, 1983 and the results of the said examination was published in the year 1985. Based on this, by order dated 3.8.1985, the petitioner
was appointed as a typist with instruction to join duty within 15 days failing which the appointment order will be cancelled. But, by representation
dated 18.8.1985, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents that since he is already working as a steno-typist permanently, he is not
joining in the post of typist. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to continue as a steno-typist. In the year 1987, the Government issued G.O.Ms.
No. 548, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.J) Department dated 10.6.1987. The candidates, who have been absorbed by virtue of
G.O.Ms. 996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22.9.1984, will be ranked below the candidates, who have
been selected and appointed in pursuance of the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in November, 1983.
Basing on this, the petitioner was assigned rank No. 270 in the seniority list, which was issued in the proceedings of the Director General of Police
dated 23.3.1991 pursuant to the above said Government Order. After a lapse of 9 years, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
27.1.2000 with a request to fix his seniority based on his selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or taking into account the date
of his initial appointment, i.e., 2.9.1982. But, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 26.4.2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner
had filed O.A. No. 1919/2002 and the same has been transferred to the file of this Honourable Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 32807 of
2005.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner was appointed on 2.9.1982, by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 548 dated
10.6.1987, he has been placed below the candidates, who have joined long after the petitioner. That apart, according to the learned Counsel for
the petitioner, though the petitioner was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as a typist by letter dated 3.8.1985, since he was
not aware of the fact that if he opts to continue by virtue of his earlier absorption in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 996 dated 22.9.1984, he will be placed
below the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission pursuant to the examination conducted in November, 1983, the
petitioner had opted to continue as a steno-typist. As such, for no fault on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be penalised by pushing him down
below his juniors in the matter of seniority. That apart, learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the petitioner is in continuous
service from 1982, without any break, his service should have been regularised with effect from 2.9.1982 i.e., the date on which he was appointed
as a steno-typist on a temporary basis. Further, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, for no fault of the petitioner, he has been given
promotion to the post of Assistant only in the year 2002. If his service with effect from 2.9.1982 had been taken into account, he could have got
his promotion as an Assistant as early as 1990. Based on this, the learned Counsel contended that the impugned order of the first respondent has
to be quashed and the petitioner''s service in the cadre of steno-typist should be regularised with effect from 2.9.1982 and he must be awarded
consequential seniority and promotion.
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that though the petitioner was selected by
the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the examination conducted in November, 1983, in spite of the appointment order issued to him on
3.8.1985, he had informed the respondents, by letter dated 18.8.1985 that as he is already working as a steno-typist permanently, he is not joining
in the post of typist. Basing on this, learned Counsel further contended that the petitioner cannot claim his seniority to be fixed with reference to the
selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. That apart, according to the learned Counsel for the respondents, seniority of those who
were absorbed by G.O.Ms. No. 996 dated 22.9.1984 was fixed by G.O.Ms. No. 548 dated 10.6.1987. After a lapse of 13 years, the petitioner
has submitted a representation on 27.1.2000 with a request to regularise his service either with reference to his initial appointment in the year 1982
or with reference to his selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and to give consequential seniority and promotion, which
according to the learned Counsel for the respondents, apart from other points, is a belated one, as such, the same has to be rejected on the point
of laches.
I have considered the submission made by the respective counsel. The petitioner was appointed as a steno-typist on 2.9.1982. By G.O.Ms.
No. 996 dated 22.9.1984, along with other candidates, who were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services
Rules, the petitioner was also absorbed on regular basis and his service was regularised with effect from 25.6.1984. Though the petitioner was
selected in the examination held by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1983 and was given an appointment order dated
3.8.1985, he gave a representation dated 18.8.1985 specifically stating that since, he is already working as a steno-typist permanently, he is not
joining in the post of typist. As such, the petitioner has given up all his claims with reference to his selection by the Service Commission in the year
1985 and now, he is estopped from making a request to regularise his service based on the said selection. That apart, as far as fixation of seniority
with regard to candidates, whose services were regularised by G.O.Ms. No. 996 dated 22.9.1984 is concerned, the Government, as early as
1987, has issued G.O.Ms. No. 548 wherein it has been clearly stated that all the candidates, who have been absorbed by virtue of G.O.Ms. No.
996 and whose services have been regularised based on the said Government Order with effect from 25.6.1984, will be placed below the
candidates, who have been selected pursuant to the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in November, 1983.
Even after the Government Order issued in 1987, the petitioner had not submitted any representation either with regard to the date of his
regularisation or seniority. Based on G.O.Ms. No. 548 dated 10.6.1987, the respondent Department issued a seniority list wherein the petitioner
was assigned rank No. 270. But, the petitioner did not raise any objection or take any steps to challenge the same. After a lapse of 9 years, only in
the year 2000, the petitioner has submitted a representation to regularise his service either with effect from the date of his initial appointment or in
pursuance of his selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Admittedly, the petitioner''s service was regularised in the year 1984 by
virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 996. After 16 years, the petitioner has submitted a request to alter his date of regularisation and grant him consequential
seniority and promotion. On the belated request of the petitioner, settled things cannot be unsettled. That apart, a specific rule has been issued with
regard to fixation of seniority of ""Special Absorption"" candidates in G.O.Ms. No. 548 dated 10.6.1987. Even that has not been challenged. That
apart, the petitioner, was in fact, promoted as an Assistant with effect from 11.2.2002. Besides, if the petitioner''s request is accepted and the date
of regularisation is modified, after a lapse of 16 years, that will have severe consequence on the seniority of a number of Junior Assistants, Steno-
typists as well as Assistants. As such, I find no merit in the relief sought for by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.