(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they were all heard together and disposed of by means of the following common order.
2,The petitioners were originally appointed as Section Writers in the Revenue Department, except the petitioner S.Gurusamy, who was working as a Surveyor in the Survey Department. All these petitioners were later on deputed for survey training and after successful completion of the said training, they were appointed as surveyors on consolidated basis, in the year 1988. The next avenue of promotion for these petitioners is to the post of Firka Surveyors. A provisional list of seniority to all Surveyors in Tuticorin District was issued on 26.07.1996 and the said provisional list was subsequently finalised on 10.01.1997. Based on the said seniority and eligibility, the petitioners were all promoted as Firka Surveyors by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Tuticorin, by his proceedings in A1/1795/97(9), dated 21.02.1997 and posted to various places. Accordingly, they joined in the promoted post.
3.While so, the Director of Survey and Settlement, by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.32/10113/97, Ni.Aa.1, dated 24.04.1997, directed the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Tuticorin, to revert the petitioners once again as Field Surveyors forthwith. Challenging the said order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, the petitioners filed O.A.3273/1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. While admitting the said O.A., the Tribunal granted interim order of stay of the said order. On the abolition of the Tribunal, the said O.A. has been transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.26625/2006 and thus the said writ petition is now before this Court for disposal.
4.Subsequently, in compliance to the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Tuticorin, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1795/97, dated 01.05.1997, reverted the petitioners to the post of Field Surveyor. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed O.A.No.3897 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. While admitting the said O.A., the Tribunal granted an interim order of stay. The said O.A. has been transmitted to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.7949 of 2007 and thus the said writ petition is before this Court for disposal.
5.It is seen from the records that on 25.06.2002, O.A.No.3897/1997 was dismissed for non-prosecution and because of the said dismissal, the petitioners were again reverted back to the post of Field Surveyors on 21.07.2004. Challenging the same, they have filed separate writ petitions in W.P.Nos.23860 and 23861 of 2004 and W.P.(MD)Nos.3507, 3508, 3509 and 3510 of 2004. In view of the fact that O.A.No.3897 of 1997 has been restored and since the stay order granted earlier has also been restored, the order impugned in the above writ petitions, namely W.P.Nos.23860 and 23861 of 2004, W.P.(MD)Nos.3507, 3508, 3509 and 3510 of 2004, have become non-est in the eye of law and no adjudication is required in these writ petitions, in view of the order presently passed in the other writ petitions.
6.O.A.No.2378 of 1998 was filed by the petitioners challenging the charges, dated 02.02.1998, issued against them for their failure to comply with the reversion orders. It appears that pending the said O.A.No.2378/1998, the said charges were cancelled by the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement, Tuticorin, and fresh charges were issued. In view of the above, the said O.A.was dismissed by the Tribunal with a direction to the petitioners to face the enquiry. Seeking to set aside the said order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2378/1998 and the fresh charges issued, W.P.No.21904/2004 has been filed.
7.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.
8.The only common question which needs to be answered in all these writ petitions is as to whether the direction issued by the Director of Survey and Settlement to revert the petitioners from the post of Firka Surveyor to the post of Field Surveyor is sustainable or not. The relief prayed for in the other writ petitions are subject to the relief that is to be granted in the writ petitions filed challenging the orders of reversion. Therefore, let us first take up the said issue for consideration.
9.The post of Firka Surveyor is governed by the Adhoc Rules for the post of Firka Surveyors and Taluk Land Records Draftsman, issued under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which came into force with effect from 23.04.1987. Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the said Rules is as follows: "The General and the Special Rules applicable to the holders of the permanent posts in the Tamisl Nadu Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service shall also apply to the holders of the temporary posts of Firka Surveyors and Taluk Land Records Draftsman, subject to the modification specified in the following rules:-
2.Constitution: The post of Firka Surveyor shall constitute a separate category in Class-I and the post of Taluk Land Records Draftsman shall constitute a separate category in Class-II of the said Service.
3.Appointment.(a)Appointment to the post of Firka Surveyor shall be made by promotion from the category of Field Surveyor in Class-I of the said Service.
(b)Appointment to the post of Taluk Land Records Draftsman shall be made by promotion from the category of Draftsman in Class-II of the said Service."
10.A reading of the above rules would go to show that the feeder category for promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor is Field Surveyor in Class- I of the said service and Draftsman in Class-II of the said Service is the feeder category to the promotion of Taluk Land Records Draftssman. Therefore, as per the said Rules, the Draftsman in Class-II cannot be promoted to the post of Firka Surveyor, as the said post is not a feeder category for the post Firka Surveyor. In the cases on hand, the petitioners were working as Field Surveyors in Class-I, from which post, on their seniority and other qualifications, they were duly promoted as Firka Surveyors.
11.According to the Director of Survey and Settlement, since the Draftsmen in Class-II, who were working in the same department, also demanded for consideration of their case also for promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor and since there were objections raised by the Union, the impugned order of the Director of Survey and Settlement came to be passed to cancel the promotion given to these petitioners and to keep the issue in abeyance, until the rules are so amended making the Draftsmen also eligible for promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor. In our considered opinion, the said reason stated by the 1st respondent cannot be accepted. It may be true that there is a proposal in the mind of the Government to amend the adhoc rules so as to make the Draftsman also as feeder category for promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor but, until such amendment is made to the adhoc rules, as it stands today, Draftsman cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor. It is needless to say that even if any amendment is so made, it will have only prospective effect and the same shall not affect the promotion given to these petitioners. Therefore, in our considered opinion, since the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Firka Surveyors made earlier was strictly in accordance with the Adhoc Rules, there are no reasons to cancel the said promotion. For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of the Director of Survey and Land Records, dated 24.04.1997 and the consequential orders of reversion passed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Tuticorin District, dated 21.07.2004, are liable to be set aside.
12.In respect of the charge memos issued against the petitioners, since there were orders of stay issued by the tribunal, the respondents cannot insist upon the petitioners to join duty in the reverted post. Thus, even prima facie, there was no material to sustain the charges and therefore they are also liable to be quashed.
13.In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders and the impugned charge memos are quashed. No order as to costs. Connected WPMPs are closed.
gb To:
1.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Recors, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
2.The Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Special Commissioner, Directorate of Survey & Settlement, Chennai.
4.The Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepakkam, Chennai.
5.The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Kovilpatti.