A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC. versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT & ORS. & ETC.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 12-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
 A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC.
 v.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUCHIRAPALLI
DISTRICT & ORS. & ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.251-256 of 2015)
MARCH 12, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS) –
r.5(g) in Annexure-III, item No.(ii) (amended) – Promotion to the
post of Deputy Tahsildar – Supreme Court in M. Rathinaswami and
Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009) 5 SCC 625 read
down the r.5(g) to the extent that it gives preference to the Direct
recruits Assistants over the Promotee Assistants who are graduates
– In compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the
Government issued directions to implement the said judgment –
Accordingly, District Collectors of Tiruchirappalli, Sivagaujai etc.
passed orders redrawing the seniority list by treating the Direct
recruit Assistants on par with the Promotee graduate Assistants –
Writ petitions were filed by Promotee non-graduate Assistants and
Direct recruit Assistants – Single Judge of High Court dismissed
the writ petitions – However, Division Bench of High Court set aside
the judgment of the Single Judge and directed the State to draw the
seniority list taking Direct recruit Assistants, Promotee graduate
Assistants and Promotee non-graduate Assistants as one group for
promotion as Deputy Tahsildar – On appeal, held: Division Bench
failed to notice that the amendment to r.5(g) of TNRSS Rules was
upheld by the Supreme Court and has attained finality – The direction
of the Division Bench to treat all three categories viz. Promotee
non-graduate Assistants and Direct recruit Assistants as one group
for the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar amounted to
reversing the judgment of Supreme Court – Direction of the High
Court was wholly misconceived – By virtue of the judgment of
Supreme Court, it is clear that Promotee graduate Assistants are
placed on par with Direct recruit Assistants – So far as Promotee
non-graduate Assistants are concerned, the amended rule holds
the field, which gives preferential treatment to Direct recruit
 340
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 340
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
341
Assistants, over Promotee non-graduate Assistants – Thus, impugned
judgment of the High Court set aside – Service Law – Promotion.
Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS) –
r.5(g) in Annexure-III, item No. (ii) (amended) – Amendment to r.5(g)
of TNRSS Rules was upheld by the Supreme Court in M.
Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 5 SCC 625  by reading
down into the Rule that the promotee graduate Assistants are to be
treated on par with Direct recruit Assistants – Appellants and the
State contended that the implementation of the said judgment/order
with effect from 04.12.1978 would create unprecedented confusion
and upset the settled position of Direct recruit Assistants who were
promoted from 1995 till 2009 by virtue of the amended Rule conferring
preferential treatment on the Direct recruit Assistants – If such a
course of action is permitted, it would seriously prejudice the rights
of those of the Direct recruit Assistants who have been promoted
from 1995 – Held: Directions issued to the effect that promotions of
the Direct recruit Assistants effected between 07.02.1995 and
08.04.2009 and their seniority in their respective positions as on
date, not to be disturbed – Further, the benefit extended to the
graduate promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Direct
recruit Assistants is to be given effect to prospectively from the date
of judgment of  Supreme Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in the
case of M. Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009)
5 SCC 625 – After 08.04.2009, the promotion to the post of Deputy
Tahsildar from its feeder category, i.e., Direct recruit Assistants and
Promotee graduate Assistants, shall be strictly in accordance with
the said judgment i.e., treating Promotee graduate Assistants on
par with Direct recruit Assistants.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  The question involved in these appeals is the
implementation of the amendment to Rule 5(g) of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS)  and Annexure-III,
item(ii) coupled with the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.
Rathinaswami v. State of T.N. in and by which the Supreme Court
upheld the amendment to the rule qua Promotee non-graduate
Assistants and read down the rule insofar as the Promotee
graduate Assistants.  [Para 10] [351-C-D]
 A. RAJAGOPALAN  v. THE DI

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