The petitioner is an association of Backward Class People Welfare in South Arcot District. They filed O.A.No.9599/97 seeking for a direction to the respondents to declare Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act 1993, ( Tamil Nadu Act,45 of 1994)as unconstitutional, ultravires and consequently declare all the actions taken by the respondents as unconstitutional and also sought for a further direction to strictly abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1993 SC 477. The immediate provocation of the petitioner in filing the Original Application was the action of the second respondent in issuing the panel for the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II for the year 1996-97. In the said panel the reservation has been made to the extent of 67% for all categories. So far as the first portion of the prayer is concerned, the matter is seized by the Supreme Court and it is heard by a larger Bench. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to decide the matter. But with reference to whether any reservation is possible in the Registration Department in respect of Backward Classes came up for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court headed by P.SATHASIVAM,J. in REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, S.C/S.T AND M.B.C., EMPLOYEES' GENERAL WELFARE SANGAM B. S.CHANDRASEKAR reported in 2005 (2) CTC page 36 and in para No.20 the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed as follows:
"20.In the light of the above discussion, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. We are satisfied that Assistants belonging to Backward class and Most Backward class cannot claim reservation in the matter of higher post of Sub-Registrar Grade II/ACTO/Deputy Tahsildar without violating the guaranteed fundamental right of equality enshrined in
Article 16(1) of the Constitution. We also hold that since Assistants who are appointed as Sub-Registrar Grade II/ACTO/Deputy Tahsildar get the appointment to the higher post above the post of initial requirement, such appointment is promotion, consequently reservation is not permissible in such appointments. Any provision to the extent it applies to the rule of reservation for appointment is not valid and unconstitutional after five years from the date of judgment in Indira Sawhney's case. We also hold that the reservation of appointments or post under
Article 16(4) is confined to initial appointment only and cannot extend to provide reservation in the matter of promotion. If the Government feels that for ensuring adequate representation of Backward class of citizens in any service, class/category, it is necessary to provide for direct recruitment therein, it shall be open to do so. But the reservation in the matter of promotion was permitted for the period of 5 years from the date of judgment i.e., from 16.11.1992 to 15.11.1997. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents all the ingredients of the meaning of "promotion" in Rule 13 are found and only the method is by way of recruitment by transfer in the same Department with higher scale of pay and all the norms of promotion are followed while appointments are made. Therefore, in the case on hand, the "recruitment by transfer" in all these cases in the same Department is deemed to be the "promotion" and for which the rules of reservation does not apply."
Subsequently, a Review Application was filed before this Court. The same was dismissed by this Court by a judgment in 2006(1)CTC 161 (THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU V. REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT SC/ST AND M.B.C., EMPLOYEES GENERAL WELFARE SANGAM). Even the Special Leave Petition against the said order was rejected by the Supreme Court. In the light of the fact the Court has taken a view that there cannot be a reservation even by way of transfer to higher posts the issue raised here is academic. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.32268/2006. In the light of the same, the writ petition is dismissed.
sal To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to the Government Registration Department Secretariat, Chennai 9
2.The Inspector General of Registration Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai 28