T.K. Ponnuswamy & Ors. Vs. he Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 1608 and 1609 of 1990
Petitioner: T.K. Ponnuswamy & Ors.
Respondent: he Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 1608 and 1609 of 1990
Judges: S. MOHAN & M. K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 27, 1994
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Promotion
Promotion to the post of District Revenue Officers from Deputy Collectors – Tamil Nadu State Civil Service (Executive Branch) Recruitment rules bring about an anomalous situation –
Held:
Rule holding ‘six years’ experience should be read as “six years experience as Deputy Collector irrespective of the fact whether the officer is a Deputy Collector by reason of ‘direct recruitment or on account of promotion – Rights of Officers to be adjusted by the State accordingly – Appeals allowed.
Held –
It cannot be denied that those serving in the lower cadre of Revenue Department are eligible for promotion as Deputy Collectors. These persons, undoubtedly, have gained knowledge and experience in the Department. The question is whether that service in the lower cadre would qualify within the framework of six years’ service for promotion as District Revenue Officer? The rule is not specific as to whether six years’ service as Deputy Collector or six years’ service in the Revenue Department. (Para 13)
If the contention of the State of Tamil Nadu is to be accepted, as rightly urged by the appellants, with hardly any service worth the name as Deputy Collectors on the basis of earlier service in Revenue Department, they become eligible for promotion as Deputy Collectors. This, undoubtedly, brings about an anomalous situation. (Para 13)
Therefore, to insist six years’ experience as Deputy Collector in the case of direct recruit and little experience as Deputy Collectors in the case of promotees brings about an anomalous situation leading to undue frustration among the officers. In our considered view instead of going into the large question whether the rule is discriminatory and, therefore, is opposed to Article 14. the matter could be resolved by so interpreting the ruling to avoid the above stated anomalous situation. Therefore, we read-down the rule holding when it says ‘six years experience’, it should be only ‘six years experience as Deputy Collector’ irrespective of the fact whether the officer is a Deputy Collector by reason of
i) direct recruitment or
ii) on account of promotion.
On this construction, the rights of the parties shall be adjusted by the State of Tamil Nadu. We also make it clear that such of those officers who have retired from the service will not be affected by this interpretation. (Para 13)
JUDGEMENT:
MOHAN, J.:
1. Consequent to the re-organisation of State of Tamil Nadu in 1956, the duties and the responsibilities of District Collector became heavy. Apart from the conventional revenue work, the Collector was made responsible for the general administration on multifarious developmental activities. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms. No. 3033 Revenue dated 19.8.1958 appointed Additional Collectors in those districts where the revenue work was heavy. On further examination of the matter, by G.O.Ms. No. 3090 Public (Special) dated 19.12.1959, nine posts of District Revenue Officers were created assigning the same duties to such District Revenue Officers as those of Additional Collectors. These posts of District Revenue Officers were included in and declared as selection grade posts of the State Civil Service vide Government Order No.1070 Public (Special) dated 25.6.1963.
2. The method of recruitment of the posts of District Revenue Officers was :
i) By direct recruitment;
ii) By recruitment by transfer:
a) from the Madras (presently Tamil Nadu) Revenue Subordinate Service; and b) from among the Superintendents of the office of the Board of Revenue and the Secretaries.
3. By order No.1804 Public (Special) dated 4.11.1968, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution declared that the posts of District Revenue Officers should constitute a separate category in Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch). The appointment to the post was made by promotion from among the members of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch). Thus, the post of Deputy Collector is the feeder category for the promotion post of District Revenue Officer. The post of District Revenue Officer was selection post. Promotion to the post was made on the ground of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability were equal. By G.O.Ms. No. 3145 Public (Special) dated 6.12.1972, an amendment was made to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules); stipulating that ordinarily no member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch) shall be appointed as District Revenue Officer unless he has a minimum of one year of service after such appointment and before superannuation. By G.O. Ms. No.3881 Public (Special-A) Department dated 16.12.1974, Rule 4 was amended. That reads as follows:
“Provided that no member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch)shall be considered for inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion as District Revenue Officer unless he has been on duty for not less than 6 years in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent posts.
Provided further that ordinarily no member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch ) shall be considered for inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion as District Revenue Officers unless he has a minimum of two year of service as on the Ist January of the year in which the panel is prepared.”
4. By G.O.Ms No.1819 Public (Special A) Department dated 4.6.1975, further amendment to Rule 4 was carried. That reads as under:
“Provided further that ordinarily no Member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch) shall be appointed as a District Revenue Officer unless he shall have a minimum of one year of service after such appointment and before the superannuation.
Explanation: In commuting the years of duty for the purposes of the first proviso, service rendered on deputation or on foreign service as on first January of the year in which the panel is prepared shall also be included.”
5. The post of District Revenue Officer came to be included in category I of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch). Category II relates to the post of Deputy Collector. It requires to be stated at this stage that under Rule 2(b) appointment as Deputy Collector was to be made by:
i) transfer
a) from Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service; and
b) from among the Superintendents of the office of the Board of Revenue, the Director of Survey and Settlements, Madras, the Director Harijan Welfare, Madras, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Madras, the Director of Land Reforms, Madras and from among the Section Officers of the Secretariat; or
ii) by direct recruitment.
6. The appellants were directly recruited to the post of Deputy Collector. They were appointed against substantive vacancies. On completion of probation, they were also confirmed against the vacancies in the year 1983.
7. The next avenue of promotion was that of Deputy Collector. In view of the amendment to Rule 4 extracted above, for inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion as District Revenue Officer, six years service in the Revenue Department was a sine-qua-non. In the seniority list of Tamil Nadu Civil Service published by the special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration on behalf of the Government as on 1.1.1989, the appellants herein were placed between Rank Nos.149 and 160. Persons ranking upto 148 had already been promoted to the post of District Revenue Officer. The appellants came to know that they were being overlooked for promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer and their juniors were to be included in the panel for the promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer. The appellants made a representation on 14.6.1988 bringing to the notice of the Government that very junior persons who were working as Tehsildar in Revenue Subordinate Service ( a lower category to the Deputy Collector) at the time when the appellants were working as Deputy Collectors would get into panel by taking advantage of the experience already rendered by them in the Revenue Department to satisfy six years service norm prescribed by Government for promotion to District Revenue Officer. Therefore, the appellants wanted that their names must also be included in the panel for the promotion to the post of District Revenue Officers pending amendment of the Rules. Earlier to this petition, another petition dated 14.6.1988 was submitted to the Government by the appellants wherein the denial of opportunity to the direct recruits in the matter of promotion to the post-of District Revenue Officer was brought to the notice of Government. The Government was also requested to amend the said rule to remove the existing discrimination. However, the second respondent by an order dated 2.5.1989 rejected their request for inclusion of their names in the panel of District Revenue Officers. Therefore, the appellants approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing an O.A.No. 843 of 1989.
8. The case of all the appellants before the Tribunal was that once the promotees and direct recruits were integrated into one category, inter se seniority in the ratio of 1:2. according to the Service Rules, there cannot be a further discrimination in regard to the promotion to the higher post.
9. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence, the present civil appeals.
10. The submission before us is that the source of recruitment for Deputy Collector are:
i) by direct recruitment;
ii) by transfer in the ratio of 1;2
11. The method of transfer is not only from the officers who are working as Tehsildars in the regular Revenue Department but also from officers of equivalent cadre from Board of Revenue, Director of Survey and Settlements, Director of Harijan Welfare, Commissioner of Civil Supplies etc. In view of prescription of six years’ service in the Revenue Department, a promotes Collector becomes eligible to be empanelled as District Revenue Officer on the strength of his earlier service in the Revenue Department. On the contrary, the directly recruited Deputy Collectors like the appellants are required to put in six years’ service as Deputy Collector before they could be included in the panel. Therefore, it is clearly unjust and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is the only grievance raised before us by the appellants. In alternative, six years’ service must be construed as service as Deputy Collector in order to avoid the anomaly.
12. Per contra, the State of Tamil Nadu would urge that in view of several representations by the various officers of the lower cadre working in the Revenue Department, they came to be promoted as Deputy Collectors almost when few years of service alone were left. In order to redress their grievance, the Rule was amended prescribing six years of service for empanelling as District Revenue Officer. If the contention of the appellants is to be accepted that even the promotee Deputy Collectors are required to put in six years’ service as Deputy Collector, there would hardly be any chance of their being promoted as District Revenue Officer. This has resulted in frustration among these officers. It is this view which has commended itself to the Tribunal. It is prayed that the same may be accepted .
13. We have already extracted the relevant rules. It cannot be denied that those serving in the lower cadre of Revenue Department are eligible for promotion as Deputy Collectors. These persons, undoubtedly, have gained knowledge and experience in the Department. The question is whether that service in the lower cadre would qualify within the framework of six years’ service for promotion as District Revenue Officer? The rule is not specific as to whether six years’ service as Deputy Collector or six years’ service in the Revenue Department. It merely says:
“Provided that no member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch) shall be considered for inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion as District Revenue Officer unless he had been on duty for not less than 6 years in the Revenue Department.
The direct recruits, after being appointed as Deputy Collectors, are obliged to put in six years’ service to qualify within the Rule. In contradistinction, the promotees staked their claims for empanelling as District Revenue Officer on the basis of earlier experience in the Revenue Department. If the contention of the State of Tamil Nadu is to be accepted, as rightly urged by the appellants, with hardly any service worth the name as Deputy Collectors on the basis of earlier service in Revenue Department, they become eligible for promotion as Deputy Collectors. This, undoubtedly, brings about an anomalous situation. Once there are two sources of recruitment to the post of Deputy Collector, namely;
i) direct recruitment.
ii) promotion
both of them have constituted one single cadre. The post of Deputy Collector is the feeder category for District Revenue Officer. Therefore, to insist six years’ experience as Deputy Collector in the case of direct recruit and little experience as Deputy Collectors in the case of promotees brings about an anomalous situation leading to undue frustration among the officers. In our considered view instead of going into the large question whether the rule is discriminatory and, therefore, is opposed to Article 14. the matter could be resolved by so interpreting the ruling to avoid the above stated anomalous situation. Therefore, we read-down the rule holding when it says ‘six years experience’, it should be only ‘six years experience as Deputy Collector’ irrespective of the fact whether the officer is a Deputy Collector by reason of
i) direct recruitment or
ii) on account of promotion.
On this construction, the rights of the parties shall be adjusted by the State of Tamil Nadu. We also make it clear that such of those officers who have retired from the service will not be affected by this interpretation. The impugned order of the Tribunal will stand modified to the above extent. Thus, the civil appeals are ordered in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Consequent to the re-organisation of State of Tamil Nadu in 1956, the duties and the responsibilities of District Collector became heavy. Apart from the conventional revenue work, the Collector was made responsible for the general administration on multifarious developmental activities. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms. No. 3033 Revenue dated 19.8.1958 appointed Additional Collectors in those districts where the revenue work was heavy. On further examination of the matter, by G.O.Ms. No. 3090 Public (Special) dated 19.12.1959, nine posts of District Revenue Officers were created assigning the same duties to such District Revenue Officers as those of Additional Collectors. These posts of District Revenue Officers were included in and declared as selection grade posts of the State Civil Service vide Government Order No.1070 Public (Special) dated 25.6.1963.
2. The method of recruitment of the posts of District Revenue Officers was :
i) By direct recruitment;
ii) By recruitment by transfer:
a) from the Madras (presently Tamil Nadu) Revenue Subordinate Service; and b) from among the Superintendents of the office of the Board of Revenue and the Secretaries.
3. By order No.1804 Public (Special) dated 4.11.1968, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution declared that the posts of District Revenue Officers should constitute a separate category in Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch). The appointment to the post was made by promotion from among the members of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch). Thus, the post of Deputy Collector is the feeder category for the promotion post of District Revenue Officer. The post of District Revenue Officer was selection post. Promotion to the post was made on the ground of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability were equal. By G.O.Ms. No. 3145 Public (Special) dated 6.12.1972, an amendment was made to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules); stipulating that ordinarily no member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch) shall be appointed as District Revenue Officer unless he has a minimum of one year of service after such appointment and before superannuation. By G.O. Ms. No.3881 Public (Special-A) Department dated 16.12.1974, Rule 4 was amended. That reads as follows:
“Provided that no member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch)shall be considered for inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion as District Revenue Officer unless he has been on duty for not less than 6 years in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent posts.
Provided further that ordinarily no member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch ) shall be considered for inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion as District Revenue Officers unless he has a minimum of two year of service as on the Ist January of the year in which the panel is prepared.”
4. By G.O.Ms No.1819 Public (Special A) Department dated 4.6.1975, further amendment to Rule 4 was carried. That reads as under:
“Provided further that ordinarily no Member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch) shall be appointed as a District Revenue Officer unless he shall have a minimum of one year of service after such appointment and before the superannuation.
Explanation: In commuting the years of duty for the purposes of the first proviso, service rendered on deputation or on foreign service as on first January of the year in which the panel is prepared shall also be included.”
5. The post of District Revenue Officer came to be included in category I of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch). Category II relates to the post of Deputy Collector. It requires to be stated at this stage that under Rule 2(b) appointment as Deputy Collector was to be made by:
i) transfer
a) from Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service; and
b) from among the Superintendents of the office of the Board of Revenue, the Director of Survey and Settlements, Madras, the Director Harijan Welfare, Madras, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Madras, the Director of Land Reforms, Madras and from among the Section Officers of the Secretariat; or
ii) by direct recruitment.
6. The appellants were directly recruited to the post of Deputy Collector. They were appointed against substantive vacancies. On completion of probation, they were also confirmed against the vacancies in the year 1983.
7. The next avenue of promotion was that of Deputy Collector. In view of the amendment to Rule 4 extracted above, for inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion as District Revenue Officer, six years service in the Revenue Department was a sine-qua-non. In the seniority list of Tamil Nadu Civil Service published by the special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration on behalf of the Government as on 1.1.1989, the appellants herein were placed between Rank Nos.149 and 160. Persons ranking upto 148 had already been promoted to the post of District Revenue Officer. The appellants came to know that they were being overlooked for promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer and their juniors were to be included in the panel for the promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer. The appellants made a representation on 14.6.1988 bringing to the notice of the Government that very junior persons who were working as Tehsildar in Revenue Subordinate Service ( a lower category to the Deputy Collector) at the time when the appellants were working as Deputy Collectors would get into panel by taking advantage of the experience already rendered by them in the Revenue Department to satisfy six years service norm prescribed by Government for promotion to District Revenue Officer. Therefore, the appellants wanted that their names must also be included in the panel for the promotion to the post of District Revenue Officers pending amendment of the Rules. Earlier to this petition, another petition dated 14.6.1988 was submitted to the Government by the appellants wherein the denial of opportunity to the direct recruits in the matter of promotion to the post-of District Revenue Officer was brought to the notice of Government. The Government was also requested to amend the said rule to remove the existing discrimination. However, the second respondent by an order dated 2.5.1989 rejected their request for inclusion of their names in the panel of District Revenue Officers. Therefore, the appellants approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing an O.A.No. 843 of 1989.
8. The case of all the appellants before the Tribunal was that once the promotees and direct recruits were integrated into one category, inter se seniority in the ratio of 1:2. according to the Service Rules, there cannot be a further discrimination in regard to the promotion to the higher post.
9. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence, the present civil appeals.
10. The submission before us is that the source of recruitment for Deputy Collector are:
i) by direct recruitment;
ii) by transfer in the ratio of 1;2
11. The method of transfer is not only from the officers who are working as Tehsildars in the regular Revenue Department but also from officers of equivalent cadre from Board of Revenue, Director of Survey and Settlements, Director of Harijan Welfare, Commissioner of Civil Supplies etc. In view of prescription of six years’ service in the Revenue Department, a promotes Collector becomes eligible to be empanelled as District Revenue Officer on the strength of his earlier service in the Revenue Department. On the contrary, the directly recruited Deputy Collectors like the appellants are required to put in six years’ service as Deputy Collector before they could be included in the panel. Therefore, it is clearly unjust and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is the only grievance raised before us by the appellants. In alternative, six years’ service must be construed as service as Deputy Collector in order to avoid the anomaly.
12. Per contra, the State of Tamil Nadu would urge that in view of several representations by the various officers of the lower cadre working in the Revenue Department, they came to be promoted as Deputy Collectors almost when few years of service alone were left. In order to redress their grievance, the Rule was amended prescribing six years of service for empanelling as District Revenue Officer. If the contention of the appellants is to be accepted that even the promotee Deputy Collectors are required to put in six years’ service as Deputy Collector, there would hardly be any chance of their being promoted as District Revenue Officer. This has resulted in frustration among these officers. It is this view which has commended itself to the Tribunal. It is prayed that the same may be accepted .
13. We have already extracted the relevant rules. It cannot be denied that those serving in the lower cadre of Revenue Department are eligible for promotion as Deputy Collectors. These persons, undoubtedly, have gained knowledge and experience in the Department. The question is whether that service in the lower cadre would qualify within the framework of six years’ service for promotion as District Revenue Officer? The rule is not specific as to whether six years’ service as Deputy Collector or six years’ service in the Revenue Department. It merely says:
“Provided that no member of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Executive Branch) shall be considered for inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion as District Revenue Officer unless he had been on duty for not less than 6 years in the Revenue Department.
The direct recruits, after being appointed as Deputy Collectors, are obliged to put in six years’ service to qualify within the Rule. In contradistinction, the promotees staked their claims for empanelling as District Revenue Officer on the basis of earlier experience in the Revenue Department. If the contention of the State of Tamil Nadu is to be accepted, as rightly urged by the appellants, with hardly any service worth the name as Deputy Collectors on the basis of earlier service in Revenue Department, they become eligible for promotion as Deputy Collectors. This, undoubtedly, brings about an anomalous situation. Once there are two sources of recruitment to the post of Deputy Collector, namely;
i) direct recruitment.
ii) promotion
both of them have constituted one single cadre. The post of Deputy Collector is the feeder category for District Revenue Officer. Therefore, to insist six years’ experience as Deputy Collector in the case of direct recruit and little experience as Deputy Collectors in the case of promotees brings about an anomalous situation leading to undue frustration among the officers. In our considered view instead of going into the large question whether the rule is discriminatory and, therefore, is opposed to Article 14. the matter could be resolved by so interpreting the ruling to avoid the above stated anomalous situation. Therefore, we read-down the rule holding when it says ‘six years experience’, it should be only ‘six years experience as Deputy Collector’ irrespective of the fact whether the officer is a Deputy Collector by reason of
i) direct recruitment or
ii) on account of promotion.
On this construction, the rights of the parties shall be adjusted by the State of Tamil Nadu. We also make it clear that such of those officers who have retired from the service will not be affected by this interpretation. The impugned order of the Tribunal will stand modified to the above extent. Thus, the civil appeals are ordered in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
