LexM.P. PALANISAMY & ORS. versus A. KRISHNAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 490
,......
+.- ,
A
M.P. PALANISAMY & ORS.
v.
A. KRISHNAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3582-84 of 2009)
B
MAY 15, 2009
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
....
-+
SERVICE LAW:
,,..
..
c
Seniority - Teachers - Post Graduate Assistants - Inter-
seniority between candidates selected by Service
Commission and candidates appointed temporarily and
regularized later or those who acquired the required_
qualification subsequently - Determination of - The High
D Court allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the Service
-~
Commission selected candidates - On appeal, Held: High
~-
Court was absolutely right in allowing the writ petitions of the
Service Commission selected candidates - No reason to
interfere with the well reasoned judgment of High Court -
E Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule
23(a)(i) - General Rules of TNPSC - Rule 10(a)(i)(1).
The inter se seniority of Post Graduate Assistants
~
between the teachers appointed between 1.7.1978 and
.-*
28.4.1981, teachers who had acquired the required
F qualification subsequently, the candidates selected by
the Service Commission and those appointed ad hoc
after 28.4.1981, not selected by the Service Commission
but were regularized, is in issue in the appeals. The
judgment of the High Court allowing the claim of the
G Service Commission selected candidates, is impugned in
.;.,
the appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
H
490
....
M.P. PALANISAMY & ORS. v. A KRISHNAN & ORS. 491
(
-1,.
HELD: 1. Though the appellants had the necessary
A
qualifications at the time of their initial appointment under
,Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the General Rules of TNPSC and
though they were subsequently regularized also, the
regularization was conditional regularization, which was
done way back in 1988. The condition regarding the
B
> '
seniority was explicit in the said regularization, which is
- i
clear from the mere reading of the G.O.Ms. No. 1813. It
cannot be forgotten that this regularization was all along
accepted by the present appellants. Once they chose to
accept the regularization which was conditional, then it c
--1
would have to be borne in mind that they have accepted
the conditions also. It cannot be countenanced that only
the favourable part of the G.O.Ms. was accepted by them
~
and the unfavourable part was rejected. If they had to do
...
it, they had to challenge the G.0.Ms. immediately. They -D
did not do it, instead they waited almost for six years,
when for the first time, they came out with an Original
Application vide O.A. No. 3617 of 1994. Again, when the
matters were decided in the Writ Petition Nos. 2911 and
3041 of 1998 on 24.3.1998 and the seniority prayed for on
E
the basis of initial appointment was refused to them, they
...
kept quiet, only to raise the same demand again in 2003
"'i
;,
when the Panel was prepared. The Panel is absolutely
correct in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 1813. The appellants
merely raised a lame piea that they did not challenge the
F
G.O.Ms. No. 1813, as they were expecting themselves to
be placed over and above the TNPSC selected
candidates. Such could never be the position in the wake
of plain language of G.O.Ms. No. 1813. This is one of the
,\:-
main reasons why the claim of the appellant$ has to be
rejected. The aspect of conditional regularization, G
therefore, had to be kept in mind. [Para 19] [506-C-H; 507-
A-BJ
2. It was pointed out that the Department had all
along given the interpretation that the second condition
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 9 S.C.R.
..
j-
I
A in G.O.Ms. No. 1813 ~pplied· only when the candidates
appointed under Rule.10{a){i)(1) and the TNPSC selected
candidates came in the same year. That may be so.
However, the parties cannot be allowed to act on the
impressions, when the original text of the G.O.Ms. says
B otherwise. There was nothing in the language of the
G.O.Ms. No. 1813 that the second condition would apply
. ~
I
.•
+
when the appointments of P .G. Assistants under Rule
10(a)(i)(1) and the TNPSC selected P.G. Assistants would
be in the same year. That was wholly wrong. Even
c clarification by the Director of School Education had
given a wrong position. That error could be perpetuated.
It was rightly corrected later on when the stand was taken
that all these P.G. As~istants would be below the TNPSC
selected P .G. Assistants. [Para 20] [507-C-F]
~
D
3.1. Though theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.