AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:
Petitioner is an association of Executive Officers, working in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. There are
four grades of Executive Officers in the HR & CE Department, viz., Grade I, II, III and IV. Special Rules were framed in 1970 for the Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Subordinate Service, which govern appointments, promotions etc., for the post of
Executive Officers. The posts of Executive Officers Grade II were filled up by direct recruitment, promotion or by recruitment by transfer. It is the
case of the petitioner that promotional chances of the Executive Officers Grade II and III were less and consequently, there was stagnation in the
lower posts. It is the case of the petitioner that an Executive Officer Grade III has to wait for not less than 14 years to get the next promotion, i.e.,
Executive Officer Grade II. Therefore, a representation was made by the association to the Government to dispense with the appointment of
Executive Officers Grade II by direct recruitment and also by transfer of service and make appointments only from Executive Officers Grade III,
i.e., by departmental promotion alone. As per the then existing Rules, one out of five posts were filled up from outside source, viz., recruitment by
transfer. The Government considering the request of the petitioner, dispensed with the appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Executive
Officer Grade II alone, vide G.O. Ms. No. 817, CT & HRE, dated 08.08.1986. Pursuant to the said order, four Executive Officers Grade III
were included in the panel along with one person from Ministerial Service of HR & CE Department.
The petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent published a panel, by which, one out of three posts in the category of Executive
Officers Grade III was directed to be filled up by transfer and the rotation is as follows:
1) Promotion
2) Promotion and
3) Transferee
The association came to know that the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 272 CT & HRE, dated 06.08.1993, by which, Sub-rule
(b) of Rule (2) of Special Rules was substituted. According to the petitioner, the basic rule in service juris-prudence is to fill up a particular post
from open market or by promotion from lower category or by appointment by transfer from other service. In so far as third category, i.e.,
recruitment by transfer is concerned, appointments are always made from among the members working in other services, having the same scale of
pay in the lower post equivalent to that of Executive officer Grade III.
The petitioner has further submitted that in Ministerial service, a Junior Assistant or Assistant gets promotion within 5 to 6 years. A Junior
Assistant is equivalent to Executive Officer Grade IV and in the normal course, he is advanced to the next promotional post of Assistant within five
years of his entry into service and within five years thereafter, he is normally expected to get his promotion as Inspector of HR & CE. By bringing
in the post of Inspector within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Officers Grade II, the promotional avenues of
Executive Officers Grade III working in the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Subordinate Service is considerably reduced. In so far as the Tamil Nadu HR
& CE Subordinate Service is concerned, a person working in the category of Executive Officer Grade IV has to wait for five years to get his
promotion to the post of Executive Officers Grade III and after 15 years, he gets his next promotion as Executive Officer Grade II. As between
persons working in two services, viz., Subordinate service and Ministerial service in the same department, persons working in the later, march over
the Executive Officers and they reach upto the level of Joint Commissioner of HR & CE. On the other hand, a promotee from subordinate service
cannot even imagine to become an Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE.
The petitioner has further submitted that by virtue of the amendment, the Government have again placed the category of Executive Officers
Grade III in a disadvantageous position which prevailed prior to 1986 amendment. Prior to 1986, out of five posts of Executive Officers Grade II,
two posts were filed up by direct recruitment, two by promotion from among the Executive Officers Grade III and one by transfer. After the
amendment to the Special Rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 817, CT & HRE, dated 08.08.1986, out of five posts of Executive Officers Grade II,
four posts were filled up from among eligible candidates working in the posts of Executive Officers Grade III by promotion and one post was
allotted to the transferee from ministerial service. Challenging Rule 10(c) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Subordinate Service,
the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition and sought for a direction to the respondents to fill up the posts of Executive Officers Grade II only
from Executive Officers Grade III.
The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department has two
services, viz, Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services. The order of ascendency in Ministerial Service is Junior
Assistant, Assistant and Inspector/Superintendent and thereafter to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner, which is a Gazetted post under the State
service. In this service, the post of Junior Assistant is filled up by direct recruitment and other posts are filled up by promotion and by transfer from
other service. In so far as Subordinate Service is concerned, the order of ascendency is, Executive Officer Grade IV, Grade III, Grade II and
Grade I. In contrast to Ministerial service, there is direct recruitment to three out of four categories of Executive Officers in subordinate Service
(i.e) Grade IV, Grade III and Grade I.
The respondents have further submitted that the representation of the petitioner association was considered and the Government, passed orders,
dispensing with direct recruitment of Executive officers Grade. ll. However, the representation for dispensing with recruitment of Executive Officer
Grade II by transfer of service was not considered.
It is further submitted that prior to the amendment issued in G.O. Ms. No. 817 CT & HRE Department, dated 08.08.1986, while preparing the
panel for recruitment to the post of Grade II Executive officer, two out of every five vacancies were filled up by direct recruitment, the next two
posts were filled up by promotion and the fifth by transfer of service. After dispensing with direct recruitment, the first two vacancies are filled up
by promotion, the third by transfer of service and the cycle repeats. According to the respondents, for every five vacancies the ratio which
prevailed before 1986 was 2:2:1 and after the amendment, the ratio followed between promotees and transferee is 2:1. The respondents have
further submitted that prior to amendment out of five posts of Executive Officers Grade II, two posts were filled up with Executive Officers Grade
III and one from ministerial service. Now after amendment, four out of five posts are filled up by Executive Officers and one post is allotted to
Ministerial staff and there is no change in allocation of posts.
It is further submitted that the Executive Officers in Subordinate Service and members of the Ministerial Service, irrespective of cadre/post,
move step by step on promotion and converge at a point, in the post of Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE, which has an overall control and
supervision over both Subordinate and Ministerial Service. The Government in the interest of administration, thought it fit that if personnel working
in another service in the same department, ie., HR & CE are given a chance to work in the other, he may be acquinted with all spheres of work
and will be in a position to run the administration tactfully and efficiently. With this intention, Service rules were framed to provide an opportunity to
persons from one service to switch over to the other service by transfer, if they so desire, as both the services are considered to be important in
running the administration in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. It is further submitted that Executive Officers have the
liberty to switch over to the equivalent cadre in the Ministerial service and may again revert to their original service at the convenient juncture.
The respondents have denied the allegation of the petitioner that they are trying to bring in more persons from Ministerial Service and dump
them in Subordinate Service. On the contrary, there is no aspirant from the ministerial service to the Grade II Executive Officer from the year
1993-94 to 1996-97 and at the time of filing counter affidavit, there were only five Executive Officers in Grade II, who were recruited by transfer.
The respondents have denied the contention that one has to serve for 15 years to get promotion as Executive Officer Grade III, another 10 years
to move on to the next grade. The respondents have further denied the averment that Ministerial staff would reach the level of Joint Commissioner
and submitted that Ministerial staff, who start their career as Junior Assistant may at best level reach the level of Assistant Commissioner at the fag
end of their service and in most of the cases, they retire as Superintendents. Very rarely a person is promoted upto the level of Deputy
Commissioner. Whereas, in Subordinate Service, as there is direct recruitment to three out of four cadres (Grade IV, III and I) and depending
upon their age and cadre, Executive Officer reach upto the level of Deputy Commissioners and on the date of filing counter affidavit, there were 13
Deputy Commissioners in the department from Executive Officers cadre, as against only from Ministerial Service. As the decision of the
Government to provide opportunity to the transferees is for improving the efficiency of administration, the amendment brought about is not
arbitrary. The respondents have further submitted that the department is bound to notify the vacancies to the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission and when there is no recruitment in a particular year, the ratio will be consolidated and recruitment will be made in the subsequent
year. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there are eligible persons working in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Subordinate Service in the category of Executive Officers Grade III, there is no need to draw persons from other service, viz.,
ministerial service, who enjoy quick promotion. He further submitted that the post of Executive Officers Grade II is a selection post, where merit is
the criteria and several persons working in the category of Executive Officers Grade III are passed over and their promotional avenue is narrowed
down by inclusion of persons from other service and in any event, there is no justification in allotting 1/3rd of vacancies to them. He also submitted
that if the chances of Executive Officers Grade III are reduced, the general administration in the department would be affected. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that fixing up the ratio between Executive Officers and transferees, i.e., Ministerial staff in the post of Executive Officers
Grade II is arbitrary and would marginalise their chances of further promotion.
Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the amendment brought about is for
improving the efficiency in administration and it is not arbitrary. He further submitted that the Government has every authority to prescribe ratio
between persons drawn from different sources and it is not within the competence of the petitioner to challenge the same.
Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
The amendment brought about by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 272 CT and HRE Department, dated 06.08.1993 by substituting Sub-
rule (2) to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Subordinate Services is as follows:
In the said Special Rules:
(1) In Rule 2, for Sub-rule (b) the following sub-rule shall be substituted, viz.,
(b) In respect of appointments to the post of Executive Officers first and third Grade, the first two out of every cycle of five vacancies shall be filled
by direct recruitment, the next two by promotion and the fifth vacancy by recruitment by transfer. In respect of appointment to the post of
Executive Officer grade IV in every cycle of 10 vacancies, seven vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment and 3 shall be by recruitment by
transfer viz., the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 10th vacancies by direct recruitment and 3rd, 6th and 9th vacancies by recruitment by transfer:
Provided that the Government may, for special reasons alter the production specified in this sub-rule:
Provided further that the proportion specified in this sub-rule is not applicable when appointments are not made by direct recruitment but by both
promotion and recruitment by transfer and the proportion specified in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 shall be followed in such appointments.
The Government in the said Government Order, after Rule 10, also inserted Sub-rules 10(a) to 10(h). In so far as the posts of Executive
Officers Grade I and Grade III are concerned, if there is no direct recruitment in a particular year, the Government fixed the ratio to be followed
among the promotees and transferees for every 10 vacancies, as follows:
(c) If there is no direct recruitment for the post of Executive Officer, Grade-I and III in a particular year and for the post of Executive Officer,
Grade-ll for which there is no direct recruitment, the ratio shall be followed among the promotees and transferees for every 10 vacancies as
follows:
Promotee
Promotee
Transferee
Promotee
Promotee
Transferee
Promotee
Promotee
Transferee
Promotee
A few decisions of the Supreme Court on the power of the Courts to interfere with the administrative function of the Government in fixing the
ratio in the matter of appointment would be relevant.
In State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. V. Sadanandam and Others, , the Supreme Court at Paragraph 17, held as follows:
The mode of recruitment and the category from which recruitment to a service should be made are matters within the executive domain of the
executive. It is not for the judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the executive decision in these matters. When the rules provide for transfer on
promotion from other local categories or zones and such transfers are not assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination, the policy of
transfer adopted by the Government is not subject to judicial review.
In A.S. Iyer and Others Vs. V. Balasubramanyam and Others, , the Supreme Court held that determination of ratio for recruitment from
different source is an administrative function and would not interfere, unless arbitrariness, malafide, irrationality or irrelevancy shown on the part of
the Government.
What transpires from the pleadings is that members of the petitioner''s association, who enter the HR & CE Department, as Executive Officers
in the subordinate service, after gradual promotion and members of the ministerial side who enter the service as Junior Assistant, converge at a
point at the level of Assistant Commissioner, which is a Gazetted post. As an administrative officer, he has to control and supervise the members
belonging to both Subordinate service and Ministerial service. The Government in the interest of administration, have decided to draw members of
the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services and provide them chance to work as Executive Officers Grade II, so that, they would be acquinted with, all
spheres of work to run the administration tactfully and efficiently. Accordingly, service rules have been framed giving option to the members of
either service to switch over to the other, if they so desire for the better administration and in the interest of public. Even the existing rules provide
for promotion by transfer to the post of Executive Officers Grade II and what is sought to be introduced by the amendment is nothing but
determining the ratio in the posts of Executive Officers Grade II between the members of two services in HR & CE Department.
Fixing ratio between the members of the Subordinate service and Ministerial service is the domain of the Government. Courts do not have the
power to interfere with the administrative functions of the executive in determining the ratio for recruitment from different sources, so long as they
are not arbitrary or irrational. Having regard to the object sought to be achieved, i.e., to run the administration tactfully and efficiently, I find there is
nexus in fixing the ratio between the promotee and the transferee. The Government have a prerogative right to prescribe the mode of appointment
and determine the ratio, whereas, the petitioner has no legal right to restrict promotional opportunities of the members of the Ministerial service.
There is no arbitrariness or irrationality in the decision of the Government in fixing the ratio.
For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.