GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus S. ARUMUGHAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 20-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-. 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
S. ARUMUGHAM AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Service law : 
Promotion Policy-Persons performing different fimctions and having 
different prospects and different avenues for promotion-Held, cannot be C 
equated-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16. 
Promotion Po/icy-Policy decision of the Government-Judicial 
. 
,, 
. 
Review-Allocation of posts among different offices of the State Revenue 
Subordinate Service for deputing Section Officers/Superintendents/or training 
as Tehsi/dar which would enable them to get further promotion as Deputy D 
Collector in the State Civil Service-Held, it was the policy decision of the 
Government-The Tribunal ought not to have given directions for formulating 
a new policy and a different quota-No Judicial Review of policy decision. 
The post ofTehsildar used to be filled as per the Tamil Nadu Revenue 
Subordinate Service Rules either by promotion from Deputy Tehsildars or E 
by deputation from amongst Section Officers in the Secretariat and the 
Superintendents working in the Board of .Revenue of different offices which 
would enable them to earn further promotion as Deputy Collectors in the 
Tamil Nadu Civil Service. Respondents who were Superintendents working 
in the Office of the Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, F 
challenged the GOMs No. 145 (Revenue) dated 29-1-1990 issued by the State 
Government increasing the quota of Superintendents working in v~rious 
specified offices for deputation as Tehsildars in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate 
Service as they were not satisfied with the quota for which they were eligible. 
The Tribunal set aside the said GO Ms and directed the appellants to review 
their scheme as far as the Secretariat staff was concerned and directed them G 
to evolve a different scheme which would give the staff a wider perspective 
in all aspects of executive works. The Tribunal also directed all Revenue 
Officers to be clubbed into one group and for the manner of deputing officers 
from that group. It had also issued direction as to how such grouping could 
be made. The State thought that these directions issued by the Tribunal fell H 
295 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A within the domain of the policy decision of the Government and thus aggrieved 
by decision of the Tribunal filed the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: The Tribunal ought not to have directed the Government to 
B change its policy. The Government has a right to frame a policy to ensure 
efficiency and proper administration.and to provide suitable channels of 
promotion to officers working in different departments and offices. The 
appellants in their detailed affidavit before the Tribunal have given the 
history of the relevant provisions and the justification for those provisions 
in the interest of efficiency and proper administration. The Tribunal cannot 
C substitute its own views for the views of the Government or direct a new 
policy based on the Tribunal's view of how the allocation should be made. The 
three groups which have been formed as far back as in 1977 for the purpose 
of allocation consist of officers performing different functions and having 
different prospects and different avenues of promotion. 
D 
The allocation was made for the purpose of ensuring, first of all, that 
the Superintendents in the Office of the Board of Revenue, Land Revenue 
Branch got a reasonable allocation for deputation in order to improve their 
efficiency; and secondly, to give the Superintendents working in other offices, 
and in the Secretariat, an additional avenue of promotion. The allocation has 
E also heen made on the basis of the prospects of promotion available in various 
offices in the city. The allocation has been in force since 1977 and it has 
stood the test of time. If the preferential treatment of one source in relation 
to the other is based on the difference between the two sources, the recruitment 
can be justified as legitimate classification. This applies to the present case 
also. Therefore the scheme in question does not violate Article 14 or 16, nor 
F it is arbitrary. The quota which should be fixed or the allocation which should 
be made for the purpose of deputing officers to Tamil Nadu Revenue 
Subordinate Service is basically in the domain of the executive. Unless there 
is a clear violation of any provision of the Consti

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