Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioners have been working as Surveyors, under the control of the second respondent. Even though the petitioners had been properly ranked in the seniority list published by the second respondent, for the years 1991, 1995, 1997 and 2000, they have been placed below their juniors, in the impugned seniority list issued by the second respondent. The persons, whose names are found in serial Nos.49 to 66, have been working as Field Assistants, under the petitioners, in the year, 1999. Therefore, it is improper for the second respondent to place the petitioners below his juniors, in the seniority list published by his proceedings, dated 7.4.2000.
3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the first and second respondents, the claims made by the petitioners had been denied. It has been submitted that the first three lists contain the names of the persons appointed in the time scale of pay posts, right from the year, 1983, from amongst the persons, who worked as Field Assistants and also from the persons appointed on compassionate grounds. Whereas, the impugned order, dated 7.4.2000, contains only the names of persons, who are working as Surveyors, as on 1.1.2000. It is further submitted that it can be seen from the list, under item (iii), categorizing the persons as Surveyor (or) Draftsman, the petitioners were working as Draftsmen, as on that date. Subsequently, the petitioners had submitted applications for appointment by conversion from the post of Draftsman to the post of Surveyor, which were examined and orders were passed by the Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, the second respondent herein, posting the petitioners as Surveyors and they had joined in duty as Surveyors, on 30.3.1999; 31.3.1999; and 1.4.1999, respectively, accepting the following three conditions.
(i) To take the last rank in the seniority list
(ii) To forego the T.A.
(iii) To face the consequences, if any, like reversion etc.,
4. The averments made on behalf of the respondents are not refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
5. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
csh To
1.The Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore