AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—The first respondent herein was a Direct Recruit District Registrar, on his being selected in Grade-I Examination
conducted by TNPSC and he joined the service during 1989. Contending that there were anomalies in the fixation of seniority in the cadre of
District Registrar, since the State Government reckoned the seniority of promoted District Registrars from the date of their initial temporary
appointment and not from the date of their regularisation in the service, the direct recruits have initiated writ proceedings before this Court, which
ultimately culminated in their filing Civil Appeal Nos.2791-2793 of 2002 before the Honourable Apex Court and the Honourable Apex Court by
the judgment dated 4.7.2006 K. Madalaimuthu and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , allowed the said Civil Appeals directing the
Department to re-fix the seniority of promotees from the date of their regularization, instead of initial appointment.
Since the orders of the Honourable Apex Court were not implemented in time, and the Government promoted one Nagasubramanian, junior to
the first respondent/applicant as Additional Inspector General, the first respondent/applicant filed Contempt Petition No.208 of 2006 before the
Honourable Apex Court. Pending the contempt proceedings, the Department issued orders of promotion, on 19.1.2007, promoting the first
respondent/applicant as Additional Inspector General of Registration with retrospective effect from 1998, but the seniority list was not revised,
consequent to the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court. The seniority list came to be revised only after filing of subsequent contempt petitions
before the Honourable Apex Court, as a result, many officers who were above the first respondent/applicant till such time, became his juniors.
During the pendency of the above said writ proceedings and the civil appeals and the contempt proceedings, the Annual Confidential Reports of
the first respondent/applicant, between 1998 and 2008 came to be recorded by the officers, who ultimately became his juniors in the revised
seniority list of April, 2008.
In the meantime, five vacancies arose in the year 2007 for promotion to the IAS, but the name of the first respondent/applicant was not
considered, since the seniority list was not revised at that point of time. Thereafter, the State Government proposed to fill up two vacancies in the
year 2009 by selection from among the non-State Civil Service Officers and the Select Committee, which met on 22.9.2009, short listed ten
officers from among 43 officers to be sponsored for interview by the UPSC in terms of the relevant regulations, but the name of the first
respondent/applicant was not in the list of the said 43 candidates, on the ground of poor gradings. Aggrieved, the first respondent/applicant had
again filed Contempt Application Nos.381-383 of 2009 before the Honourable Supreme Court. Though the Honourable Apex Court had initially
granted stay of selection of the IAS, subsequently, the said contempt applications were disposed of on 18.1.2010, by recording the undertaking
given by the learned Attorney General to the effect that the name of the first respondent/applicant would be considered for selection for IAS
without taking into consideration the ACRs for the period from 22.5.2006 to 31.3.2008. In spite of such an undertaking given on behalf of the
Department by the learned Attorney General, the name of the first respondent/applicant was not considered for the two vacancies of the year 2009
on the ground of poor gradings. Hence, the first respondent/applicant filed O.A.No.954 of 2010 before the Tribunal, praying to direct the
respondents therein to consider his name for appointment to IAS, by selection in terms of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997
against the two vacancies notified for the year 2009.
Since the Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application, the respondents therein/the authorities have filed W.P.No.29573 of 2010 before
this Court and a Division Bench of this Court, headed by and speaking through one of us (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.), by the order dated 22.2.2011
has disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations and findings:
In support of their contention that the first respondent/applicant got less gradings when compared to Tmt.Sudha Malliah, which resulted in non-
consideration of the name of the applicant for the two vacancies arose in the year 2009, the writ petitioners have submitted before us the original
files, which has substantiated the above contentions of the writ petitioners. Therefore, we are unable to upheld the direction issued by the Tribunal
to consider the name of the first respondent/applicant for the two vacancies arose in the year 2009.
On a complete analysis of the entire materials placed on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the delay caused on the part of the writ
petitioners in implementing the directions of the Honourable Apex Court, in revising the seniority list, has caused much prejudice to the first
respondent/applicant. The Honourable Apex Court has allowed the Civil Appeal Nos.2791-2793 of 2002 on 4.7.2006, but the first
respondent/applicant was given promotion as Additional Inspector General of Registration, with retrospective effect from 1998 only on 19.1.2007,
that too after filing of contempt applications by the applicant. But, still, the seniority list was kept unrevised till 2008, which obstructed the first
respondent/applicant from claiming his name to be considered for the five vacancies that arose in the year 2007 and paved way for the names of
some of the juniors of the first respondent/applicant to get included and thus the juniors of the first respondent/applicant got fortuitous opportunity
of being called for selection to the IAS, like Mr.R.Shanmugam, who was placed junior to the first respondent/applicant in the re-fixed seniority list
and was holding only a junior rank of Deputy Inspector General of Registration.
We have no hesitation to hold that the snail pace attitude exhibited on the part of the writ petitioners in implementing the orders of the highest
Court of the land has caused much prejudice to the case of the first respondent/applicant. Had everything been done in time, in our considered
view, the first respondent/applicant would have got a chance to get his name included in the relatively large list of 2007 with five vacancies.
However, since there is no prayer of the first respondent/applicant to consider his name for the 8 five vacancies of the year 2007, we are unable to
go further deep into this aspect of the matter.
Therefore, while setting aside the direction of the Tribunal to conduct DPC for the two vacancies of the year 2009, and further directing the
first respondent/applicant to file a comprehensive Original Application before the Tribunal for inclusion of his name for the five vacancies of the
year 2007, if he is so advised, we dispose of this writ petition.
This order of the Division Bench of this Court has become final, since no appeal has been preferred by any of the parties. Thereupon, the first
respondent herein has filed O.A.No.565 of 2011 before the 5th respondent Tribunal, praying to direct the respondents therein to consider and
appoint him to the IAS by selection in terms of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 against the 5 vacancies notified for the year
2007 in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.29573 of 2010, dated 22.2.2011 with all consequential and attendant benefits of
seniority, pay fixation, arrears etc.
The Tribunal, considering the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.29573 of 2010, dated 22.2.2011, has disposed of the said Original
Application by the order dated 31.5.2011, with the following directions:
a. There will be a direction to the respondents to consider and appoint the applicant to the IAS by Selection in terms of the IAS (Appointment by
Selection) Regulation 1997 against the vacancies notified for the year 2007 in the light of the judgment of the High Court in W.P.29573/2010,
dt.22.2.2011 with all consequential and attendant benefits of seniority, pay fixation etc.
b. While appointing the applicant in respect of the vacancy of the year 2007, the said appointment should be adjusted in the future vacancy as per
the sanctioned strength.
c. In the event of selection and appointment of the applicant, the selection of the persons for the year 2007 should not be disturbed except fixation
of their seniority with the applicant.
d. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
e. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Aggrieved, the respondents 4 to 7 before the Tribunal have come forward to file this writ petition.
Heard Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General for the writ petitioners an Mr.Vijay Shankar for first respondent/applicant.
10.main ground of attack to the order passed by the Tribunal by the writ petitioners is that the vacancies for the year 2007 have already been filled
up. It is within the knowledge of this Court, when an order has been passed in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.29573 of 2010 on
22.2.2011, that the vacancies of the year 2007 would not have been kept pending all these years. When there is ample material on record to the
effect that an illegality has been perpetrated on the first respondent/applicant, presumably for the reason that he is knocking the doors of the legal
fora against the illegality or inaction of the concerned authorities, considering the totality of circumstances alone, we have directed the first
respondent/applicant to file a comprehensive application before the Tribunal for the vacancies of the year 2007, if he is so advised. The order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.29573 of 2010, dated 22.2.2011 has attained finality and now by way of this writ petition, the petitioners, are
trying to challenge the said order, as if this Court is ignorant of the procedure contemplated under law for selection of IAS and that it is also
ignorant of the fact that the vacancies of the year 2007 have already been filled up.
Every time, the applicant/first respondent is being driven from pillar to post by the writ petitioners, presumably since he knocked the doors of
judicial fora for relief. We are forced to comment so, since in spite of the order by the Honourable Apex Court, the writ petitioners have exhibited
slackness and purposely slowed down the implementation of the order of the Honourable Apex Court, leading to filing of contempt petitions by the
first respondent. As has already been observed by us in the order dated 22.2.2011, ''had everything been done in time, in our considered view, the
first respondent/applicant would have got a chance to get his name included in the relatively large list of 2007 with five vacancies''. Having already
deprived the first respondent of his due, the petitioners have again come forward to file this writ petition, as if the order passed by the Tribunal is
illegal, ignoring the fact, it is nothing but an order passed towards implementation of the order already passed by this Court in W.P.No.29573 of
2010, dated 22.2.2011, which was allowed to attain finality by the petitioners. Having allowed the said order of this Court to attain finality, the
petitioners are not justified in filing this writ petition, since it would amount to seeking this Court to sit as an appellate authority over and above the
order dated 22.2.2011, which is quite impermissible. The Tribunal, while allowing the prayer of the applicant/first respondent, was so cautious in
protecting the interest of the persons, who were selected against the 2007 vacancies. Therefore, no prejudice whatsoever would also be caused to
such selected candidates.
Therefore, holding this writ petition as a vexatious litigation filed by the writ petitioners, to further purchase and prolong the time, in order to
deprive the first respondent of his due, particularly when the order of this Court in W.P.No.29573 of 2010, dated 22.2.2011 has attained finality
and the writ petitioners are so casual and callous to the orders passed by the Honourable Apex Court in the earlier round of litigation, we confirm
the order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing this writ petition. The writ petitioners are directed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal within
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.