A. MAHUDESWARAN AND ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 12-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
23. 
c 
A. MAHUDESWARAN AND ORS. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
MARCH 12, 1996 
K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules: Rule lO(a)(i) and 
Service Law-Regularisation-Seniority-Abolition of post of Village 
OfficeT"-Section writers assisting the Village Officei-Given Training and 
appoi11ted against regular pay scales as Surveyor-Cum-Draftman with effect 
from date of their joining duty-Subsequently Government relaxed the age 
qualification of some of them and appointed them in the Tamil Nadu Survey 
and Settlement Subordinate Seivice with effect from the date on which the 
D Regular pay scales were given to them-Some of them also 
promoted-Govemment clarification for their regularisation-Pursuant there-
to their services regularised either as Field Surveyor or Draftsman from the 
date of their respective promotio1r-Representation made by respon-
dents-Second clarification issued by Government to regularise the services 
E in altemative vacancies-Consequelltly appellants became junionnost--<:hal-
lenge before Tribunal which directed regularisation of services in altemative 
vacancies-Appeal against order of Tribunal-Held principle of regularisation 
adopted by the Government was fair and consistent with Rules JO(a}(i) and 
23 of the Tamil Nadu State & Subordinate Service Rules-Subsequellt direc-
tion to regularise the services of the persons in the rotational altemative 
F 
vacancies was not valid. 
Doctrine of legitimate expectatiol't--Must be consistent with operation 
of statutory mlc1'-Regulation of legitimate expectation cannot be indis-
criminately projected but requires consideration in the setting and scenario of 
G factual backdrop. 
{ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5139-61 
~~~~ 
0 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.93 of the Tamil Nadu 
H State Administrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. Nos. 4051-54, 4025-29, 4031, 
312 
A. MAHUDESWARANv. GOVT. OF T.N. 
313 
4032, 4034, 4355-56, 4040, 4035, 4037-38, 4046, 4048-50 and 4179 of 1992. A 
-· 
S. Sivasubramaniam, R. Mohan, V.G. Pragasam and R. Nedumaran 
for the Appellants. 
A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur and Ambrish Kumar for the 
Respondents. 
B 
The followings order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
c 
Leave granted. 
The facts are not in dispute. Consequent upon the abolition of the 
post of the Village Officer in the year 1982, around 2000 Section Writers 
assisting the village officers were sought to be taken into the Survey and D 
Settlement Department on their completion of three months training to be 
given to them and then appointed as Surveyor-cum-Draftsman on contract 
basis. Pursuant thereto, the appellants were given training as Surveyors on 
a fll<ed pay. On completing the training of three months prescribed by the 
Government, they. were appointed as Surveyors. The appointment as Sur-
E 
veyors was to take effect from the daie they joined the duty in the new 
updating District Survey Unit to which they were allotted. Consequently, 
they joined the duty and were discharging duty either as Surveyor or 
Draftsman against regular pay-scales. 
It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the recommendations made F 
by the Assistant Director of Survey in various orders, the Government had 
sought recruitment through the Public Service Commission. The Public 
Service Commission had granted relaxation. In furtherance thereof, the 
Government relaxed the age qualification of some of them and appointed 
them in the Tamil Nadu Survey and Settlement Subordinate Service with 
effect from the date on which the regular pay scales were given to them in G 
April 1987. It is also not in dispute that many of the appellants have been 
subsequently promoted either as Field Surveyors or Inspectors. The 
clarification thereafter has been sought by the Assistant Directors as to 
how the combined seniority of the persons who were working as Surveyor 
or Draftsmen in the respective units was to be determined. The Govern- H 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A ment in their clarificatory letter dated August 29, 1990 stated that the 
procedure of seeking their option and treating them as separate units and 
regularising the respective candidates in the units to which they opted 
would create problems for the reason that the required number of posts 
may not be available in the respective units and that, therefore, it wou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.