Prayer in W.P.No.12751 of 2004 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.443 of 1999, dated 9.12.2003 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.V. Vijayakumar in W.P.Nos.12751, 19859 to 19862/04, 44369/06, 33893, 36679 of 2007 For Petitioner in WP.16388/2007 : Mr.M. Govindaraj Respondents 3 to 6 in WP.Nos.8955 to 8965/08 For Petitioner in WPs.8955 to 8965, : Mr.T.S. Sivagnanam 9224 & 9225/2008 For Petitioner : Mr.C. Selvaraj in WP.21204/2007 Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Mani For Petitioner in WP.42318/2006 : Mr.R. Singaravelan For Respondent-State : Mr.M. Dhandapani Special Govt. Pleader For Respondent-4 in W.P.No.19859/04 For Respondent-14 in WP.16388/2007 : Mr.L. Chandrakumar For Respondents 13,14, 16 & 19 in WP.44369/06 For Respondent-8 in WP.44369/2006 : Ms. Narmadha Sampath For Respondents 3,4, 5 and 10 : Mr.S.S. Vasudevan in WP.44369/2006 For Respondent-1 in WP.No.21204/2007 : M/s.G. Ramapriya
- - -
COMMON JUDGMENT P.K. MISRA, J The seemingly never ending controversy revolving round the question of inter se seniority in the Forensic Science Department is the subject matter of all these writ petitions.
2. The background facts are as follows :-
It appears that during 1959, the Chemical Examiners Laboratory under the control of Medical Department and the Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue and the Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department are stated as State Forensic Science Laboratory and governed by the Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.912, Home Department, dated 28.3.1964 for Madras State Forensic Science Subordinate Service. Subsequently, in 1967, the State Forensic Science Laboratory was bifurcated to Chemical Examiners Laboratory functioning independently with Special Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1611 dated 16.6.1971 and State Forensic Science Laboratory functioning under the Police Department with Special Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1306 dated 14.5.1971. By G.O.Ms.No.33, Home Department, dated 4.1.1971, State Forensic Science Laboratory was bifurcated as Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department and Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue. Subsequently, in 1973, there was a merger of Chemical Examiners Laboratory and Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, which became known as Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory. During 1980, there was a further merger of The Prohibition & Excise Laboratory under the control of Board of Revenue and Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory under the control of Police Department and continued to be known as Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory. In 1984, this integrated unit was renamed as Forensic Sciences Department. The Government b G.O.Ms.No.2790, Home Department, dated 3.10.1986, issued Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Subordinate Service. In the interregnum, the Government had sanctioned number of posts temporarily in various cadres and number of recruitments in the feeder category of Scientific Assistant Grade II were made without any specific service rules. Simultaneously, Scientific Assistant Grade II already working in the Forensic Science Laboratory had also been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I. However, promotions had been given by following the approved list at the time of recruitment in the feeder category and also following the rule of reservation. Till November, 1982, almost the entire staff working in the Department was on temporary basis. The Government had issued a set of directions to regularise such temporary service retrospectively vide Government Letter No.48038/FS/82-6, Home Department, dated 2.11.1982. and accordingly temporary staff had been regularised. Draft inter se seniority for all the staff was published by Director's Memo No.A1/18652/86 dated 26.2.1987 and all the persons were invited to file their representations. After receipt of such representations, a revised seniority list was published on 3.11.1987 as per Director's Proceedings No.A1/18491/87 dated 3.11.1987. During 1993, there was some problem in grouping various divisions in the Department with different subjects such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology and large number of representations have been made. The Government through D.O. Lr.No.22429/Pol/93-1 Home (Pol-16) Department dated 30.4.1993, suggested the Director to form a Committee under the Chairmanship of the then Deputy Director to study the practical difficulties experienced by the staff with present system of grouping of Divisions in the Forensic Sciences Department and also some lacunae in the Service Rules. Accordingly, a Committee was formed as per Director's Memorandum No.A1/6732/93 dated 21.6.1993. Thereafter, the Director issued Memorandum No.A1/6732/93 dated 25.6.1993, wherein revision of seniority was also included as one of the subjects and based on such subsequent circular, the Chairman of the Committee sent notice to all the staff to send representation regarding grievance in the seniority. On the basis of the recommendation made by such Committee, the then Director issued a fresh seniority list as per Office Order No.77/95 dated 23.6.1995, wherein objections / representations were invited within a stipulated period. At such stage, representations had been made by several persons. In such seniority list, instead of taking the date of joining of Scientific Assistant Grade I as the relevant starting point of seniority, seniority in the feeder category,namely, Scientific Assistant Grade II, has been taken as the base. While such representations were still pending and matter had not been finalised, the Director issued a panel of promotion to the post of Scientific Officer in G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999. This G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999 became the starting point of the present set of litigations.
2.1 One P. Rajan filed O.A.No.443 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for quashing G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8, dated 4.1.1999, so far as Respondents 3 to 9 in such applications were concerned and to extend all benefits, service and monetary, by according appropriate placement over and above the Respondents 3 to 9 with effect from 13.7.1983 as Scientific Assistant Grade I and other benefits of promotion. One A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, filed O.A.No.4155 of 1999 against R. Bhanumathy, M. Karpagam, S. Geethalkakshmi, K.V.K. Radhamani, M. Radhika, G. Lakshmi, V. Karpagam, M. Gomathi, V.T. Vimali, M.S. Hameetha Begam and P. Kirubakaran, Respondents 3 to 13 therein, for quashing the Proceedings issued the Director in Pro.No.A1/5772/95, dated 23.6.1995 and the Government Letter No.23203/Pol.XVI/99-2, dated 8.6.1999 and to promote him to the post of Scientific Officer with effect from the date when his immediate junior was promoted and above the Respondents 3 to 13 therein. H. Balashanmugham filed O.A.No.6831 of 1999 claiming similar relief. M. Udayakumar filed O.A.Nos.304 of 2001 and 2558 of 2003 and C. Ravindran filed O.A.Nos.326 of 2001 and 2557 of 2003. O.A.Nos.304 & 326 of 2001 had been filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.7 and 8, dated 4.1.1999, whereas O.A.Nos.2557 and 2558 of 2003 had been filed challenging the reversion of seniority made in 2002. The Tribunal by common order dated 9.12.2003, allowed all such Original Applications and quashed the impugned Government Orders and the seniority list and directed the Government to fix the seniority of the applicant by taking into account the date of appointment as Scientific Assistant Grade I. It was further directed that if any of the juniors of the applicant had been promoted as Scientific Officer, the applicant should be promoted from the date on which his juniors were promoted.
2.2 C.P. Ravichandran, Respondent No.3 in O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.12751 of 2004 and an order of interim stay was passed on 30.4.2004, which was made absolute on 13.9.2004 in WPMP.No.14854 of 2004 in WP.No.12751 of 2004.
2.3 P. Subbulakshmi, Respondent No.4 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19859 of 2004.
M. Karpagam, Respondent No.9 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19860 of 2004.
K. Hemavathy, Respondent No.5 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19861 of 2004.
R. Banumathi, Respondent No.6 in such O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.19862 of 2004.
The other respondents, namely, E. Ezhilarasi and K.P. Devarajan, apparently have not filed any writ petition challenging the order passed in O.A.No.443 of 1999.
M. Karpagam, G. Lakshmi and V.T. Vimali, who were Respondent Nos.4, 8 and 11 in O.A.No.4155 of 1999 filed by A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, have filed W.P.Nos.21204 of 2007 against the very same order pertaining to O.A.No.4155 of 1999.
3. O.A.No.2336 of 1999, had been filed by Mr.P. Ettiyappan before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.1999 and also the Proc.No.A1/5772/95, O.O.No.77/95 dated 23.6.1995 with a prayer to redraw the panel and also to revise the seniority list claiming seniority over Respondents 4 to 10 in such O.A. Such Original Application, on abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, has come to the High Court on transfer and has been renumbered as W.P.No.42318 of 2006. In such Original Application converted as Writ Petition, C.P. Ravichandran, P. Subbalakshmi, K. Hemavathi, Ezhilarasi, R. Bhanumathi, K.P. Devarajan and K. Karpagam are respectively the Respondents 4 to 10. Notice is not ready regarding Respondent No.6, namely, K. Hemavathi and Respondent No.9, namely, K.P. Devarajan. However, these persons have been represented through their counsels in other connected matters. Such petitioner has also filed W.P.No.8956 of 2008, which shall be noticed a little later. In the Original Application, the basic grievance is regarding the seniority list dated 23.6.1995 by contending that earlier seniority list dated 3.11.1987 had not been challenged. Similarly it is contended that the panel was prepared on the basis of wrong seniority. It has been claimed that as a matter of fact he had been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I ahead of the respondents in the writ petition mainly because such respondents had declined to go on promotion to the place outside the Chennai and preferred to continue as Scientific Assistant Grade II. It has been also indicated that against revision of seniority list dated 23.6.1995, representations had been made by him on 17.7.1995 and 26.8.1996, which were yet to be considered by the filing of the O.A., and yet the persons junior to him have been included in the panel.
4. After disposal of such O.A.No.443 of 1999 and other connected matters, the Government had also directed the Director to form a Committee to study the problems relating to seniority. Accordingly, the Committee headed by the Deputy Director went into the matter and on that basis as per Director's Proceedings No.A1/42200/2006, Office Order No.194/2006 dated 25.10.2006, seniority list had been prepared. This has been subsequently approved by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.473, Home Department, dated 2.4.2007 has been issued.
5. C.P. Ravichandran has filed W.P.No.44369 of 2006 by challenging the seniority list dated 25.10.2006. The very same petitioner has also filed W.P.No.16388 of 2007 against G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007. One Murali Krishnan, who was not a party to O.A.No.443 of 1999, has filed W.P.No.33893 of 2007 challenging G.O.Ms.No.473 Home (Police 18) Department, dated 23.4.2007, issued by the Government on the basis of the Proceedings of the Director, Forensic Sciences Department, dated 9.10.2006 and 25.10.2006 and for a consequential direction to fix the inter se seniority among the persons working in the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Services on the basis of date of their entry into service, completion of probation and regularisation in the feeder category of Scientific Assistant Grade II. During pendency of all these writ petitions, certain persons were promoted as Assistant Directors making it clear that such promotion was subject to result of W.P.No.16388 of 2007. Muralikrishna had also filed W.P.No.36679 of 2007 challenging promotional order issued by the Director in Proceedings No.A1/41364/2007/O.O.No.184/2007 dated 5.11.2007, based on G.O.Rt.No.2409 Home (Pol.18) Department, dated 2.11.2007 so far as the Respondents 4 to 8 therein with a consequential direction to promote him as Assistant Director as per the original panel of seniority list of Scientific Officers arrived by G.O.Ms.No.1224 dated 7.9.1999. However, since subsequently Contempt Applications were filed, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.425 Home (Police 18) Department, dated 5.4.2008 and the Director issued Office Order No.37/2008 dated 8.4.2008 reverting such persons from the post of Assistant Director to the former post of Scientific Officer. Mrs.S. Vijaya, Mr.P. Ettiyappan, Mr.P. Ravishankar, Mr.V. Mohan, Mr.K.P. Devarajan, Mrs.R. Vasantha, Mr.A.R. Mohan, Mrs. Kamalakshi Krishnamoorthy, Mr.V. Kanagasabapathy, Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy and Mr.N. Kalimuthan have filed W.P.Nos.8955 to 8965 of 2008 respectively challenging the order of reversion reverting them from the post of Assistant Director to Scientific Officer, wherein an order of interim stay had been passed thus staying the order of reversion. C.P. Ravichandran, K. Hemavathy, R. Banumathy, who are the petitioners in W.P.Nos.12751, 19861 and 19862 of 2004 respectively have got themselves impleaded as Respondents 3 to 6 and similarly one V. Geethalakshmi, who apparently has not filed any writ petition against the order relating to O.A.No.443 of 1999, had got herself impleaded as Respondent No.6. Subsequently, Mrs.V.K. Selvarani and Mr.R. Neelakanda Pillai have filed W.P.Nos.9224 and 9225 of 2008 against the very same reversion order.
6. In this latter group of writ petitions the submission is to the effect that W.P.No.12751 of 2004 was pending before the High Court and, therefore, it was inappropriate, unjust and illegal to issue any order of reversion, even though the matter of seniority had not yet been finalised. It is to be noticed that approval of the panel for positing such petitioners as Assistant Directors was made as per G.O.Ms.No.1503 dated 24.10.2007, whereunder it is clearly mentioned that the panel is approved subject to outcome of W.P.No.16388 of 2007 filed by C.P. Ravichandran against the seniority list of Scientific Officers approved in G.O.Ms.No.473, Home Department dated 2.4.2007. It is thus obvious that the fate of these writ petitions is interlinked with the question of seniority as projected in W.P.Nos.12751/2004, 16388 and 33893/2007.
7. The stand of the Respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.Nos.8955 to 8965 of 2008 is reflected in the petition filed for vacating the stay in W.P.No.8955 of 2008. In such affidavit, it is stated that the person concerned was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II ahead of the writ petitioner in this group of cases and such persons had been temporarily promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I under fortuitous circumstances. In the seniority list dated 3.11.1987, many juniors, who had been made Scientific Assistant Grade I under fortuitous circumstances had been ranked above the employees like Respondents 3 to 6. The rule of relinquishment was clarified only by G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 15.3.1988 and, therefore, those who had temporarily relinquished or temporarily promoted and reverted before issuance of such G.O., on 15.3.1988, could not be penalised and similarly those who had been temporarily promoted de hors the rules under fortuitous circumstances could not be considered as seniors in Scientific Assistant Grade I. On 5.2.1992, a fresh regularisation order has been issued to those who had been appointed before 3.10.1986 in consultation with Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The fresh seniority list was issued on 23.6.1995 in respect of those appointed and promoted before 3.10.1986, which had not been challenged by any of the writ petitioners and had become final. Subsequently, a seniority list was issued for Scientific Assistant Grade I on 12.1.1999, which reflected the correct position. Before that G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999 had been issued containing the panel for promotion for the year 1996-1997 and 1997-98, wherein the writ petitioners had not been included. In O.A.No.443 of 1999 filed by Mr. Rajan and in other O.As., the seniority list dated 23.6.1995 was not specifically challenged and the Tribunal had granted relief in those matters beyond the scope of such Original Applications and such orders have been challenged by various aggrieved persons by way of writ petitions. C.P. Ravichandran himself had filed W.P.No.12751 of 2004, wherein stay had been granted. Seniority list has been revised in 2006 in utter disregard of the stay order and the persons had been promoted. C.P. Ravichandran himself has filed W.P.No.44369 of 2006 challenging fixation of seniority in October, 2006, and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007 has been challenged in W.P.No.16388 of 2007. Only during pendency of such writ petitions, promotion order in G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007 has been issued in violation of the stay order and therefore such promotees have been rightly reverted.
8. In W.P.No.21204 of 2007 the petitioners are challenging the order dated 9.12.2003 in O.A.No.4155 of 1999, which had been filed by A. Viswa Monna Mohammed, Respondent No.1 in the present writ petition, wherein these petitioners were the respondents in O.A.No.4155 of 1999. The stand of the petitioner in the said case is similar to the stand of C.P.Ravichandran and others and they are depending upon the report of the Committee and the consequent issuance of seniority list on 23.6.1995. In this writ petition, notice had not been served on Respondents 4 and 6 and these respondents are being pro-forma respondents, it is not necessary to wait till service of notice on them, more particularly when R. Banumathy herself has filed W.P.No.19862 of 2004 and she is otherwise respondent in several other writ petitions and entered appearance through her Advocate. Respondents in several other writ petitions had entered appearance through Advocate. The other respondents in such writ petition, namely, Respondents 4 to 11, were also respondents in O.A.No.4155 and 6831 of 1999.
9. From the narration of facts and events so far it is apparent that the battle lines are now more or less drawn between the persons who succeeded before the Tribunal on one side and those who were pitted as Respondents in such Original Applications. For convenience, the former group can be compendiously described as the Applicants whereas the other group can be described as contesting Respondents. Briefly stated, the contention of the former group is that the seniority in the post of Scientific Assistant Grade I should be on the basis of promotion and not on the basis of original entry into service as Scientific Assistant Grade II. The contention of the latter group is that persons who had been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade-I under fortuitous circumstances should not be treated as seniors. The former group banks upon the seniority fixed in the list dated 3.11.1987, whereas the latter depends upon the seniority fixed in the list dated 23.6.1995. The subsequent seniority list dated 2.4.2007 challenged by C.P. Ravichandran in W.P.No.16388 of 2007 is more or less akin to the seniority list dated 3.11.1987.
10. The question relates to seniority and promotion in the rank of Scientific Assistant Grade I and the Scientific Officer in the Office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is not in dispute that the applicant P. Rajan was first appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 25.11.1981 whereas the many of the contesting respondents were appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II earlier to such applicant. However, such Respondents had declined the promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant Grade I on account of various individual difficulties and it so happened that the applicant was promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I with effect from 17.6.1983, whereas the contesting respondents were promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on subsequent dates.
11. So far as C.P. Ravichandran, who was Respondent No.3 in O.A.No.443 of 1999 and the petitioner in W.P.No.12751 of 2004, is concerned, he was initially appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 1.8.1979. Subsequently, he was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade I temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules by order dated 27.7.1981. In such appointment, it was indicated that it was purely temporary and will not confer any preferential right to future appointment. Subsequently, he was transferred and posted temporarily as Scientific Assistant Grade II on request by order dated 9.9.1981. He was again temporarily promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I by order dated 24.3.1982. Similarly, along with him, some of the other respondents, namely, R. Banumathi, M. Karpakam, P. Subbulakshmi, K. Hemavathi, E. Ezhilarasi and R. Neelakanda Pillai and K.P. Devarajan were also promoted temporarily as Scientific Assistant Grade I as per the same order. Again by order dated 24.6.1982, on the return of one Selvi Annie Cuise, Scientific Assistant Grade I, C.P. Ravichandran was reverted as Scientific Assistant Grade II on request and posted in Excise Division. These persons were declared to have completed their probation vide order dated 31.5.1983 with effect from earlier dates, effective from 1.8.1981. So far as the applicant P. Rajan is concerned, he was first appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 25.11.1981. However, even before the completion of two years and completion of the period of probation, he was promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I by order dated 11.7.1983 and he was continuing as such thereafter. So far as C.P. Ravichandran is concerned, he was again promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I with effect from 19.3.1985 and the other contesting respondents were promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on the subsequent dates. Since there were certain disputes relating to seniority in the rank of Scientific Assistant Grade I promoted before 3.10.1986, the Government by D.O. Letter No.22429 dated 30.4.1993, constituted a Committee for redressal of service anomalies. The Committee prepared a report, which was circulated by the Director as per the Proceedings dated 23.6.1995. In such proceedings it was indicated as if the contesting respondents had been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I in August 1982, presumably on completion of three years of their service as Scientific Assistant Grade II. The applicant P. Rajan was shown to be promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I with effect from 25.11.1984. Objections had been raised and were pending.
12. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 4.1.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.1999 approving the panel of the Scientific Assistant Grade I, fit for appointment as Scientific Officer in the Forensic Science Laboratory by recruitment by transfer for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98. In such first panel for the year 1996-97 as per G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 4.1.1999, the names of C.P. Ravichandran, R. Neelakanda Pillai and P. Subbulakshmi are included as S.Nos.10, 11 and 12 and in the panel for the year 1997-98 and, as per G.O.Ms.No.8, K. Hemavathi, R. Banumathi, E. Ezhilarasi, K.P. Devarajan and M. Karpakam were included as S.Nos.3,4,7,8 and 9 respectively. The applicant P. Rajan was not included in any of those panels. It is apparent that the panel had been drawn up on the basis of seniority as suggested vide O.O. dated 23.6.1995 according to date of entry into service as Scientific Assistant Grade II.
13. Immediately thereafter, P. Rajan filed O.A.No.443 of 1999. The main contention which was projected in such O.A. was to the effect that even though the respondents were appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II earlier than the applicant, they had expressed their willingness to forego promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant Grade I and were actually promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I 3 to 4 years after the applicant himself had been appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade I. It was further stated that the Committee for redressal of service anomalies prepared the proceedings without taking into account the relevant records and service particulars and against such report the applicant had made a detailed representation on 14.7.1995. Even though the matter had not been finalised, the subsequent panel as per G.O.Ms.No.7 and G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 4.1.1999 had been illegally prepared. The basic contention, therefore, was to the effect that even though contesting respondents were appointed earlier as Scientific Assistant Grade II, since they were admittedly appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade I on different dates later than the appointment of the applicant, they could not be treated as senior to the applicant in the rank of Scientific Assistant Grade I and, therefore, they could not have been given the promotion earlier than the applicant.
14. The Tribunal on the basis of various records came to the conclusion that even though the contesting respondents had been appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on the dates earlier than the applicant P. Rajan, they were actually promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on different dates later than the appointment of the applicant P. Rajan as Scientific Assistant Grade I. The Tribunal found that all such respondents had initially relinquished their promotion. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the seniority list, which was published on 3.11.1987 had taken into account all the relevant factors and correctly reflected the seniority. The Tribunal further concluded that though such seniority had been finalised in 1987, without any justification, such seniority was sought to be disturbed as per the report of the Committee, which was not justified. On the aforesaid basis, the Tribunal allowed O.A.No.443 of 1999 and directed that such applicant should be taken to be senior in the post of Scientific Assistant Grade I and should be deemed to have been promoted from the date on which his juniors have been promoted. Such order is being challenged in W.P.No.12751, 19859 to 19862 of 2004.
14.1 Another aggrieved person by name P. Ettiyappan has filed O.A.No.2336of 1999, which is transferred and pending before the High Court, Madras as W.P.No.42318 of 2006.
15. In W.P.No.12751 of 2004 filed by C.P. Ravichandran, it is contended that the applicant P. Rajan was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade I, purely on temporary basis which would not confer any preferential right to future appointment. Moreover, such P. Rajan had not even completed the probation on 13.7.1983 as required under Rule 36(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. It has been further stated that in the communications and in the seniority list, which had been circulated, P. Rajan has been shown junior to C.P. Ravichandran and subsequently the proceedings dated 23.6.1995, on the basis of the report of the Committee inter se seniority had been correctly indicated. It has been further submitted that since the writ petitioners had been appointed earlier as Scientific Assistant Grade II and had been regularised earlier, they should have been treated as seniors. It has been further contended that rule of relinquishent, which came into effect by G.O.Ms.No.494 with effect from 20.9.1988 after due amendment to Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules, could not have been applied by the Tribunal to hold that those who had relinquished promotion were not eligible for promotion for a period of three years. It has been further submitted that the report of the Committee for redressal of the service anomalies was a well considered report and it should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal.
16. In W.P.No.19859 of 2004, P. Subbulakshmi, the petitioner, had been initially appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 1.8.1979 and she was promoted on 27.7.1981 and posted at Coimbatore, but the petitioner opted to stay back in Madras and on request the promotion was cancelled by proceedings dated 29.7.1981 and she continued as Scientific Assistant Grade-II since there was no vacancy. Subsequently, she was promoted on 24.3.1982, but again on her own request she continued as Scientific Assistant Grade II. Such petitioner had been initially appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II. It is submitted by her that on 9.8.1992 the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.783 and Rule 47 was amended, which came into effect from 20.9.1988. Therefore, at the time when she had declined promotion, there was no rule regarding forfeiture of promotion. The grounds of attack indicated in the above writ petitions are similar to the grounds raised in W.P.No.12751 of 2004.
17. In W.P.No.19860 of 2004, M. Karpagam, the petitioner, was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 27.10.1979. He was promoted along with others on 24.3.1982, but on her request she was posted as Scientific Assistant Grade II at Madras as there was no vacancy in the cadre of Scientific Assistant Grade I. She was again promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on 25.3.1987. The grounds of attack indicated in the petition are similar to the grounds raised in W.P.No.12751 of 2004.
18. K. Hemavathy, the petitioner in W.P.No.19861 of 2004, was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 1.8.1979. She was promoted on 24.3.1982 with others as Scientific Grade I, but posted at Coimbatore. Due to family circumstances she requested for a posting at Madras and since there was no vacancy she was continued to be posted as Scientific Assistant Grade II. Ultimately, she was again promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on 7.8.1985. She has promoted as Scientific Officer since 27.1.1999. The grounds of attack projected in her writ petition are similar to the grounds raised in W.P.No.12751 of 2004.
19. R. Banumathi, the petitioner in W.P.No.19862 of 2004, was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 6.8.1979. She was promoted along with the other petitioners on 24.3.1982, but on her own request she was continued to be posted as Scientific Assistant Grade II at Madras and ultimately she was promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on 5.3.1987. The grounds of attack projected in her writ petition are similar to those of W.P.No.12751of 2004.
20. From the materials on record it is apparent, as has been noticed by the Tribunal, that all such writ petitioners, who were the contesting respondents before the Tribunal in O.A.No.443 of 1999, were appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II during August, 1979, whereas P. Rajan, the applicant in O.A.No.443 of 1999, was appointed only in July, 1981. However, all these writ petitioners had either declined the promotion or on being temporarily promoted had been reverted without demur to the post of Scientific Assistant Grade II and all such petitioners have been subsequently promoted after the applicant was given the promotion in July, 1983. The petitioners have submitted that since they were seniors to the applicant as Scientific Assistant Grade II and subsequently they had been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I and since there was no specific rule at that time that those who declined the promotion would be deprived for a particular number of years, they should be treated as seniors compared to the applicant. The other contention raised by them is to the effect that on the basis of the recommendation made by the Committee, seniority had been refixed on 23.6.1995 and the applicant before the Tribunal had not specifically challenged such seniority and had merely challenged the subsequent empanelment of the petitioners as per G.O.Ms.Nos.7 and 8 dated 4.1.1999. It has been further submitted that at any rate all of them had continued as Scientific Officer from January, 1999 and, therefore, the things already settled should not be unsettled. It is also contended by them that the applicant has been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I even before he had completed the period of probation of two years and, therefore, as per Rule 37(a) he is not eligible to the promoted at that stage. The petitioners also submitted that O.A.No.443 of 1999 was taken up along with other O.As, wherein the present petitioners were not parties and the Tribunal had disposed of all the matters together without giving opportunity of filing counter to the official respondents or even the private respondents by relying upon the counter in O.A.No.2557 of 2003, wherein only the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory was made as a party.
The above contention is not acceptable in view of the fact that such persons had enough opportunity to project their stand in the Original Applications in which they had been impleaded and all such matters heard together.
21. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant before the Tribunal submitted that since the writ petitioners had either declined the opportunity of promotion or had been reverted and since the applicant had been promoted ahead to all of them, they cannot be subsequently heard to say that they should be treated as seniors in the place of Scientific Assistant Grade I notwithstanding their actual promotion after the promotion given to the applicant. It is further submitted that in the earlier seniority list the position had been correctly reflected and the subsequent recommendation of the Committee was not justified and at any rate a representation had been made which had not been considered and at the earliest opportunity when the panel was prepared the applicant had challenged the preparation of the panel before the Tribunal.
22. The appointment of P. Rajan as Scientific Assistant Grade II was regularised as per Proceedings No.A1/3393/83 dated 5.3.1983 and subsequently as per the proceedings dated 28.6.1988, his services as Scientific Assistant Grade I was regularised with effect from 25.11.1984. As a matter of fact, by the very same order, the services of C.P. Ravichandran, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.12751 of 2004 was regularised as Scientific Assistant Grade I with effect from 19.3.1985.
It is the contention of the "contesting respondents in O.A.No.443 of 1999 (Petitioners in first group of writ petitions) that P. Rajan could not have been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I before completion of 2 years. In view of the Proceedings dated 28.6.1998, such a contention cannot be countenanced at such a distant point of time.
23. It is no doubt true that all the petitioners have been appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II earlier than P. Rajan and even orders had been issued for their promotion as Scientific Assistant Grade I. However, all of them due to some personal reasons declined to avail such promotional post and preferred to continue as Scientific Assistant Grade II. In the meantime, the applicant P. Rajan, who had been appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 25.11.1981, was made Scientific Assistant Grade I on 11.7.1983. Subsequently, orders have been issued regularising his appointment as Scientific Assistant Grade I with effect from 25.11.1984. It is thus apparent that factually all the petitioners have become Scientific Assistant Grade I only after the applicant P. Rajan had become Scientific Assistant Grade I. It is of course true that initial promotion of the applicant as Scientific Assistant Grade I in July, 1983 was to some extent irregular in the sense that such applicant was yet to complete his probation. However, the fact remains that by the subsequent office order his appointment as Scientific Assistant Grade I has been made regular with effect from 25.11.1984. It is significant that the appointment of C.P. Ravichandran, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.12751 of 2004, as Scientific Assistant Grade I is also regularised by the very same order issued in 1988 with effect from 19.3.1985. Therefore, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that C.P. Ravichandran, the petitioner in W.P.No.12751 of 2004, was all along aware that P. Rajan was made Scientific Assistant Grade I on a date earlier to him. Admittedly, other writ petitioners have been made Scientific Assistant Grade I on subsequent dates. Thus, factually P. Rajan had become Scientific Assistant Grade I on a date earlier than the present writ petitioners. This precisely is the conclusion of the Administrative Tribunal.
24. It is of course true that before 1988 there was no specific rule relating to with-holding of promotion to a person who declines promotion. That does not, however, alter the factual position that as a matter of fact the present petitioners have been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I after the promotion of the applicant P. Rajan. In such a background, we do not find anything to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal so far as W.P.Nos.12751, 19859 to 19862 to 2004 are concerned. For the very same reasons, the subsequent two writ petitions, namely, W.P.No.44369 of 2006 and W.P.No.16388 of 2007, filed by C.P. Ravichandran, do not call for any interference.
25. C.P. Ravichandran, the petitioner in W.P.No.12751 of 2004, has also filed W.P.No.44369 of 2006 and W.P.Nos.16388 of 2007 challenging the issuance of subsequent seniority list in October, 2006, by the Director and by the State Government. Service Bio-data of the petitioner upto the time of his appointment as Scientific Officer vide order dated 4.1.1999 has been narrated in such writ petition. The petitioner has stated that seven posts of Assistant Director in Forensic Department have fallen vacant to be filled up and, on the basis of the efforts made by the first respondent P. Rajan, a provisional seniority list on the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal had been circulated notwithstanding the fact that stay had been granted and petition for vacating the stay had been rejected. The fate of these writ petitions is therefore dependent upon the result in W.P.No.12751 of 2004.
26. So far as W.P.No.21204 of 2007 filed against the common order of the Tribunal relating to O.A.No.4155 of 1999 is concerned, such writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the same reason for which W.P.No.12751 of 2004 and other connected matters has been dismissed. The Tribunal has analysed as to how such persons had declined the opportunity for promotion and as to how the name of the applicant A. Viswa Monna Mohammed had been ignored while considering the panel. Moreover, such writ petition has been filed only in the year 2007, even though the Tribunal had rendered the judgment in O.A.No.4155 of 1999 in 2003. Therefore, in addition to the reasons applicable in W.P.No.12751 of 2004, W.P.No.21204 of 2007 is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
27. W.P.Nos.33893 and 36679 of 2007 filed by S. Muralikrishna are concerned, he claims that he was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade II on 17.3.1981 and after completion of two years he was regularised from the date of entering into service. It is claimed by him that he had requested the Director to promote him as Scientific Assistant Grade I but, overlooking his seniority, his juniors had been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I. It is further claimed by him that he had protested against the promotion of such Juniors and the Director had replied that such promotion was temporary in nature and would not confer any seniority on those persons. It is not disputed by him that he was subsequently promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I on 27.2.1986. He has also stated that on 3.11.1986, an integrated seniority list was published. He further claimed that representations have been made and thereafter seniority list dated 23.6.1995 had been prepared and his seniority has been correctly fixed. In essence, he has challenged G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007. Subsequently, the other writ petition has been filed challenging the promotion of Respondents 4 to 8 in such writ petition.
28. It is to be noticed that even though the petitioner had claimed that he had protested earlier and had made representations, he had made a representation on 27.11.2006, which is rejected by the Director on 19.12.2006. Thereafter, he appears to have made another representation dated 29.12.2006 and subsequently on 2.5.2007. It is to be noticed that Office Order No.233/88 dated 28.6.1988 had indicated about the regularisation of services of different Scientific Assistants Grade I from different dates. In the said document, which was communicated to all concerned, the petitioner was shown to have been regularised with effect from 27.2.1986 and the persons above whom he is now claiming seniority had been regularised with effect from earlier dates. If the petitioner had any grievance, he should have ventilated the same soon thereafter. There is nothing on record to indicate that in fact he had made further representation until after the Director refixed the seniority on 25.10.2006.
29. Having kept quiet for a long period, such petitioner suddenly cannot claim ante-dating his seniority from 1983 on the ground that he should have been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I then. At this distant point of time, it is not possible to verify and accept the bold, but beautifully vague, and bald assertion that he protested against his promotion and he had made representations, more particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous document. In the absence of any such contemporaneous document, it is difficult to accept such bald assertion that he had made representations when his juniors have been promoted to the post of Scientific Assistant Grade I, more particularly when such promotion has taken place more than two decades back. The materials on record, on the other hand, suggest that he preferred to be posted at Chennai as Scientific Assistant Grade II instead of being promote as Scientific Assistant Grade I as he would have been posted outside. Law is well settled that in the matters relating to seniority, the person aggrieved should ventilate his grievance within a reasonable period and the matters which have been finalised should not be re-opened. The seniority list, which has been circulated by the Director on 25.10.2006 and subsequently approved by the Government on 2.4.2007 is based on all relevant factors. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of such petitioner and such writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed.
30. The other W.P.Nos.8955 to 8965, 9224 and 9225 of 2008 are directed against the order of reversion. Since we have thought it fit to dismiss W.P.No.16338 of 2007, the order of reversion must be taken to be inoperative. These writ petitions are therefore allowed.
31. So far as W.P.No.42318 of 2006 is concerned, the claim of seniority of such applicant is prima facie justified. The logic projected by the Tribunal in O.A.No.443 of 1999, which is approved by us in the earlier paragraphs, is equally applicable. The contention that he could not have been promoted as Scientific Assistant Grade I before completion of two years is liable to be rejected for the same reason for which we have rejected similar contention relating to P. Rajan in W.P.No.12751 of 2004. It is apparent that subsequently he has been promoted, subject to result of the case in W.P.No.16388 of 2007, and thereafter an order of reversion was passed, which has been challenged in W.P.No.8956 of 2008. At any rate, in the subsequent seniority list, which has been approved by the Government on 2.4.2007, he has been shown senior and we have not interfered with such seniority nor we have interfered with his promotion. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.8956 of 2008, it is not necessary to specifically deal with O.A.No.2366 of 1999 transferred as W.P.No.42318 of 2006, which is accordingly disposed of.
32. Therefore, on a perusal of all the relevant documents available in all the writ petitions and keeping in view the submissions made by the rival parties including the submission made by the Special Government Pleader for the State, our conclusion is to the following effect :-
(1) There is no merit in W.P.Nos.12751, 19859, 19860, 19861 and 19862 of 2004, filed by Respondent Nos.3, 4, 9, 5 and 6 in O.A.No.443 of 1999. All such writ petitioners, who were respondents before the Tribunal had either willingly declined the opportunity of promotion as they would be likely sent out of Chennai or when promoted and subsequently reverted had acquiesced in such reversion and had not at that stage challenged promotion of any of the juniors before any court of law. Their contention that the seniority list circulated on 23.6.1995 had become final is not acceptable inasmuch as many representations had been made and immediately after preparation of panel as per G.O.Ms.No.7 & 8 dated 4.1.1999, Original Applications had been filed by persons who had been ignored.
(2) The direction in O.A.No.443 of 1999 and other connected matters that the persons who had been ignored were to be considered for promotion from an earlier date in the absence of any challenge by the State Government, is also sustainable.
(3) Subsequent seniority list finalised on 25.10.2006 by the Director and accepted as per order dated 2.4.2007 by the State Government, is challenged by C.P. Ravichandran in W.P.Nos.44369 of 2006 and 16388 of 2007. Since the basic contention raised by C.P. Ravichandran in W.P.No.12751 of 2004 is not acceptable, we do not find any scope to interfere with such seniority list at the instance of C.P. Ravichandran. Therefore, W.P.Nos.44369 of 2006 directed against the seniority list issued by the Director and, W.P.No.16388 of 2007 directed against the seniority list approved by the State Government, are liable to be dismissed.
(4) W.P.No.21204 of 2007, filed against the order relating to O.A.No.4155 of 1999 is liable to be dismissed, both on merit as well as on the ground of laches, inasmuch as the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2003.
(5) W.P.Nos.33893 and 36679 of 2007 filed by one S. Muralikrishna, who is not a party to O.A.No.443 of 1999, against the seniority list issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 2.4.2007 and the seniority list issued by the Director on 9.10.2006 and 25.10.2006, are also liable to be dismissed.
(6) W.P.NOs.8955 to 8965 of 2008 and W.P.Nos.9224 and 9225 of 2008 challenging the order of reversion are to be allowed inasmuch as the orders of reversion have been passed obviously because of the pendency of the contempt applications. While giving promotion to those persons it has been specifically indicated that such promotion was being given subject to the result in W.P.No.16388 of 2007. Now that W.P.No.16388 of 2007 is being dismissed, there is no justification in the subsequent reversion order.
(7) In view of the order passed in W.P.No.8956 of 2008, no further order is required in O.A.No.2366 of 1999, transferred and renumbered as W.P.No.42318 of 2006, which is accordingly disposed of.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
dpk To
1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director, Forensic Sciences Department, Forensic House, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004