R. PALANISAMY & ORS. versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 24-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
R. PALANISAMY & ORS.
v.
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6439 of 2020)
JULY  24, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff – Claim
for – Various persons working as Record Clerks and Office
Assistants in Erode District filed a writ petition before the High
Court seeking promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff without insisting
on the educational qualification of a pass in SSLC – Their claim
was based on the High Court order dated 22.07.2009 in batch of
cases and the fact that present vacancies arose before the enactment
of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act,
2016 – The High Court rejected the claim on the ground that the
previous judgment dated 22.07.2009 in the batch of cases is no
longer of any relevance after coming into force of 2016 Act and
that date on which vacancies arose cannot determine the Rule
applicable for recruitment by promotion – On appeal, held: After
the implementation of the recommendations of (i)The Shetty
Commission and (ii) The Tamil Nadu v Pay Commission, no one was
entitled to claim a right to promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff,
without the prescribed essential qualification – The petitioners
cannot take refuge under the failure of the Government to issue
necessary amendment to Statutory Rules and the previous judgment
of the High Court dated 22.07.2009 – Pending the issue of
amendment to Statutory Rules, (i) The nomenclature of the post has
changed and (ii) a higher scale of pay also given to the post – One
cannot reap the benefit and ignore the requirement – The previous
judgment of the High Court dated 22.07.2009 did not take into
considerations any of these developments and hence cannot be cited
as precedence by petitioners – Further, 2016 Act actually replaces
the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services
– But Act does not override the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 588
588
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
Service – The High Court and petitioners overlooked s.68 of the
2016 Act – However, the ultimate conclusion reached by the High
Court is unassailable – No ground to interfere with the order of the
High Court.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. It is clear that after the implementation of the
recommendations of (i) the Shetty Commission and (ii) the Tamil
Nadu V Pay Commission, no one was entitled to claim a right to
promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff, without the qualifications
prescribed. [Para 13][594-F-G]
2. The petitioners cannot take refuge under (i) the failure
of the Government to issue a necessary amendment to Statutory
Rules and (ii) the previous judgment of the High Court dated
22-07-2009 passed in a batch of cases. Pending the issue of
amendment to statutory rules, (i) the nomenclature of the post
has changed and (ii) a higher scale of pay also given to the post.
One cannot reap the benefit and ignore the requirement. The
previous judgment of the High Court did not take note of any of
the above developments and hence the same cannot be cited as
a precedence by the petitioners. [Para 14][594-G-H; 595-A]
3. The argument revolving around the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and the
fact that vacancies arose in the year 2015, prior to the enactment,
is of no relevance. This Act was enacted to consolidate the law
relating to recruitment and the terms and conditions of service
of persons appointed to the State and Subordinate services in
the State of Tamil Nadu, in terms of the mandate contained in
Article 309. Until the advent of this Act, the State of Tamil Nadu,
like many other States, was only issuing Rules in exercise of the
power conferred by the Proviso to Article 309, though such Rules
were meant only to be a stop gap arrangement until an Act of the
legislature was made. This 2016 Act actually replaces the General
Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. But
the Act does not override the Special Rules. Section 68 of Tamil
Nadu Act No.14 of 2016 makes it clear that the Special Rules will
prevail over the provisions of the Act, if any provision of the act
is inconsistent therewith. [Para 18][596-B-D]
R. PALANISAMY & ORS. v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
4.  But the petitioners as w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.