STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. ETC. versus S. THANGAVEL AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 29-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
S. THAN GAVEL AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 29, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules: Rule 4(a) and 39-
Interpretation of 
C 
Service Law-f'anel-l'reparatio11 of-i'ower of Govemmem to make 
supplementary list-Tamil Nadu State and subordi11ate service-Promo-
tion-Rule requiring that panel should be prepared annually against estimated 
vacancies-Date prescribed by Rule for preparation of panel-On prescribed 
date no vacancies anticipated-But due to bifurcation of the firkas and 
D upgradation of the Sub-Taluks into Taluks, 23 new posts were created by the 
Govemment for filling up the same-<:onsequently list drawn and appoint-
ments made-<:hallenge by respondents--Tiibunal held that in the light of the 
Rules, the Govemment was devoid of power to make any supplementary 
list-Appeal prefe1red by State-Held, the view taken by the Tribunal is not 
correct-In nonnal circumstances, a list shall be annually prepared in the 
E prescribed man11er taking into account the vacancies existing or anticipated 
as on the prescribed date due to contingencies enumerated therein-But that 
does not mean the Govemment is de11uded of its power to make the list when 
new situation had arisen-Undoubtedly, in this case, as 011 the prescribed date 
there were no vaca11cies and, therefore, a list could not be prepared-But due 
F to creation of new posts 011 account of administrative exigencies, namely, 
bifurcation of the firkas and upgradatio11 of the sub-taluks i11to taluks, new 
posts were created-Consequently, new posts were required to be filled 
up-The authorities, instead of making temporary promotions under Rule 39 
of the Rules, filled them up on regular basis from all the eligible can-
didates.-Theref ore, the preparation of the list cannot be said to be unwar-
G ranted due to aforestated exigencies-The G. O.Ms. No. 1227/ 1981 has no 
application to these facts.-
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
H 
Sections 2(8) and (9)-Administrative Tribunai-'Judge', 'Judgment' 
392 
STATEv. S. THANGAVEL 
393 
and 'Order'-Judgment is the decision of a court of justice upon the respective A 
rights and claims of the pa1ties to an action in a suit submitted to it for 
detennination-17te word ''Judgment" denotes the reasons w."ich the court 
gives for its decision-The members of the Tribunal cannot ue considered to 
be Judges and their statement cannot be treated to be a decree; it may be 
const1ued to be only an order for the pwpose of decision anived at by the 
Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act-17te Tribunal's order cannot 
be treated to be a judgment or decree but they should be only an order. 
Seivice Law-Promotion-Respondent qualified as on September 15, 
1982 for promotion as Deputy Tehsilder-:list prepared before due date and 
he was made ineligible on account of list made in advance of due 
date-Direction by Tribunal to include his name in the list-Held, the view 
of the Tribunal is peifectly correct, the list was prepared two days prior to the 
due date,-Since admittedly, the respondent was qualified as on the due date, 
namely, September 15, 1982, he is entitled to be empanelled in the list for 
promotion, after due consideration, as per Rules. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 16636-37 
of 1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.91 of the Tamil Nadu 
Administrative Tribunal at Madras in T.A. No. 123 and 127 of 1989. 
T. Harish Kumar, V. Krishnamurthy, and K.K. Mani for the Appel-
lants. 
Ms. Asha Nair, Y.S. Rao, C. Balasubramaniam, K.R. Kumar, V. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Krishnamurthy, T. Raja and Ms. Abha R. Sharma for the Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
CA.@ SLP (C) NOS. 18886-87191 & 9056-57192 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras by purported judg-
ment and order, made on June 11, 1991 in T.A. Nos. 123 and 127 of 1989, 
G 
has held that under Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subcrdinate H 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A Service Rules on preparation of the panel either with the names or 'nil' 
annual list, the Government exhausted their power to make another list in 
the same year for promotion of the subordinate officers to the higher post 
in the State or Subordinate service. The said view is in question in these 
appeals. 
B 
The admitted position is that due to bifurcation of new firkas

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