GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. versus S. BALASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 31-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
S. BALASUBRAMAN!AM AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 1995 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service/The 
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 
C 
Rules 3, 6/ R. 22--Deputy Tehsildar---Appointments-Reservation--
Held, rule 6 of Special Rules referred to provisions of R.22 of General 
Rules-It cannot be construed as inc01porating by reference R.22 of General 
Rules into R.6-Amendments introduced in R.22 in 1967 and thereafter were 
applicable in matters of appointment under R.3 of Special Rule by virtue of D 
R.6 thereof-ft was not necessa1y to make an amendment in R.6 of Special 
Rule to incorporate the amendment that was introduced in R.22 of General 
Rules in 1967. 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : 
S.5--Central Administrative T1ibunal-Constitutfon of Bencl~eld, a 
matter involving validity of a statutory rule made under Article 309 should be 
heard by a Bench of two Members. 
Interpretation of Stanttes : 
Reference/Citation of a statute into another and incorporation 
pa1ticular provision-Difference between-Explained. 
of a 
E 
F 
The respondents were Assistants in the Revenue Department in the 
Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. They belonged to the non-reserved 
category. They were eligible for appointment to the post of Deputy Tehsil- G 
dar as per Rule 3 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subor-
dinate Service. Rule 6 of these Rules, which dealt with the reservation, 
prior to its amendment in 1977, provided that R.22 of the Tamil Nadu 
State and Subordinate Service Rules (General Rules) would apply to 
appointments to the posts of Deputy Tehsildars. General Rule 22 was H 
567 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
substituted in 1971 raising percentage of reservation for Scheduled Cas-
tes/Scheduled Tribes and Back-ward Classes. Rule 6 of the Special Rules 
was also substituted by G.0. No. 1256 dated 20.6.1977, making applicable 
General Rule 22 in the matter of reservation of appointments to the posts 
of Deputy Tehsildars. However, amended rule 6 of the Special Rules was 
B 
not published in the State Gazette and its validity was challenged before 
the High Court in a writ petition, which was allowed. The State appealed 
before the Division Bench of the High Court. Meanwhile amended Rule 6 
was published in Government Gazette in 1984. The Government also 
issued another G.O. Ms. No. 660 dated 19.4.1988 reintroducing Rule 6 of 
the Special Rules with retrospective effect from 20.6.1977 in the same terms 
C as it was substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 1256 dated 20.6.1977. Validity of this 
G.0. was also challenged before the High Court, which dismissed the writ 
petitions and the appeal as having become infructuous. In respect of the 
writ petition involving G.O. Ms. No. 660 the petitioners were given liberty 
to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the respon-
D dents, filed an application before the Tribunal assailing the applicability 
of G.0.Ms. 660 dated 19.4.1988 contending that the post of Deputy Tehsil-
dar was a promotional post for the respondents and retrospective opera-
tion of the amendment affecting their promotion was invalid. The Tribunal 
allowed the application holding that appointment to the post of Deputy 
Tehsildar by transfer from the ministerial staff in the Revenue Department 
E was to be construed as promotion and not diri,ct recruitment and in view 
of decision in Indira Sawluiey's* case reservation was not permissible in 
the matter of promotion. It allowed the application and directed that 
vacancies that had arisen till 1988 amendment should be filled up in 
accordance with the rules as they were before the amendment and seniority 
F 
should be relixed accordingly. Aggrieved, the State Government filed ap-
peals by special leave. 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal, 
this Court 
G 
HELD : 1.1. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the amend-
ment introduced in Rule 6 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Revenue 
Subordinate Service by G.O. Ms. No. 660 dated April 19, 1988, insofar as 
it gives retrospective effect to the said amendment, is invalid. [577-C] 
H. 
2.1 In law, a distinction is drawn between a mere reference or citation 
-
GOVT. OF T.N. v. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN 
569 
of a statute into another and incorporation of a particular provision of a A 
statute. While in the former 

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