Disposed

The Addl Chief Secretary v. K. Manigandan

Madras HC6 Sept 2021WA/826/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two writ appeals against an order fixing seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Revenue Department. It directed officials to draw a seniority list within three months based on eligibility, including training status.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Appellants to draw a seniority list within three months and consider the case of the parties for regular promotion.

The Addl Chief Secretary Vs K. Manigandan — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶7

Writ Appeal Nos.826 and 827 of 2020

¶8

Writ Appeal No.826 of 2020:

¶9

`1.`	`The Additional Chief Secretary/` `Commissioner of Revenue Administration,` `Chepauk,` `Chennai 5.`
`2.`	`The District Collector,` `Thiruvannamalai.`
`3.`	`The District Revenue Officer,` `Thiruvannamalai.` `... Appellants`
	`vs.`
`1.`	`K.Manigandan,` `Senior Revenue Inspector,` `Special Tahsildar Office,` `(Stamp duty)` `Tiruvannamalai District,` `Pin 606 601.`
`2.`	`A.Thamizharasi,` `Senior Revenue Inspector,` `Office of District Collector,` `Tiruvannamalai District,` `Pin 606 601.`
`3.`	`A. Shamshanth Begam,`
	`Senior Revenue Inspector,`

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

Office of District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Pin 606 601.
4.N.Vadivel,
Revenue Assistant,
Taluk Office, Cheyyar,
Tiruvannamalai District.
5.E.Kalaiyarasi,
Revenue Assistant,
Taluk Office,
Tiruvannamalai.
6.P.Kaveri,
Revenue Assistant,
Kalasapakkam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
against the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.1895 of 2019.

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.1895 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayed that this
Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate Writ directions or order in the nature of
a Writ, Directing the 3rd respondent to consider the claim of
the petitioners for cancelling the order of promotion of the
respondents 4 to 6 as Revenue Assistants by inclusion of their
names in the panel for the year 2012 revert them to their
Original Posts in the light of the Judgement dated 12.12.2018 in
W.A.No. 1247/ 2015 and restore the seniority of the petitioners
in the cadre of Revenue Assistant and consider their names for
empanelment for promotion as Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2018
at the proper place and to promote them.

¶13

For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
 Government Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr.M.Sivavarthanan
For Respondents 4 to 6: Mr.S.Vijayakumar

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

`Writ`	`Appeal No.827 of 2020:`
`1.`	`The Principal Secretary/` `Commissioner of Revenue Administration,` `Chepauk, Chennai 5.`
`2.`	`The District Collector,` `Thiruvannamalai.`
`3.`	`The District Revenue Officer,` `Thiruvannamalai.` `... Appellants`
	`vs.`
`1.`	`N.Vadivel,` `Revenue Assistant,` `Taluk Office, Cheyyar,` `Tiruvannamalai District.`
`2.`	`E.Kalaiyarasi,` `Revenue Assistant,` `Taluk Office,` `Tiruvannamalai.`
`3.`	`P.Kaveri,` `Revenue Assistant,` `Kalasapakkam Taluk,` `Tiruvannamalai Dt.`
`4.`	`M.Thamilarasi,` `Senior Revenue Inspector,` `O/o/ District Collector,` `Tiruvannamalai District,` `Pin 606 601.`
`5.`	`A. Shamshanth Begam,` `Senior Revenue Inspector,` `Office of District Collector,` `Tiruvannamalai District,` `Pin 606 601.`
`6.`	`S.Manjunathan,`
	`Taluk Supply Officer,`

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

Polur Tk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt.

¶18

7.K.Manigandan,
Revenue Assistant,
O/o. The Special Tahsildar Office,
(Stamp duty)
Tiruvannamalai Tk & Dt.

¶19

8.K.Arulkumar,
Revenue Inspector,
Santhavasal Firka, Polur Tk,
Tiruvannamalai Dt. ... Respondents

¶20

Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
against the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.24117 of 2013.

¶21

Prayer in W.P.No.24117 of 2013: Writ Petition filed under
Section 226 of the Constitution of India herein prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiarified
Mandamus, or any other Writ or order or direction in the nature
of writ, calling for the records relating to the 3rd respondent
in his proceedings No.A3/ 38896/12 dated 21.5.2013 and to quash
the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to include
the petitioners name in the panel of Assistants for the year
2012.

¶22

For Appellants: Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
 Government Advocate

¶23

For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For Respondents 4, 5 & 7: Mr.M.Sivavarthanan
For 6th Respondent: No appearance
For 8th Respondent: Not ready in Notice

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)

¶26

This Writ Appeal is directed against the common order
dated 20.12.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24117 of 2013
and W.P.No.1895 of 2019.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

2.The issue that, revolves around the present Writ
Appeals is with regard to promotion between the direct recruits
and promotees.

¶29

3.In the case on hand, even though, the Writ
Petitioners in WP.No.24117 of 2013 have passed all the required
tests, they have not been deputed to training, despite their
willingness to undergo training for one year. Since they were
not sent for training, it has been contended by the contesting
Respondents that, in the absence of training, they will not be
entitled to promotion.

¶30

4.The learned Single Judge, after considering the
case of the direct recruits and promotees, came to the
conclusion that, Petitioners in W.P.No.24117 of 2013 have to be
promoted as 'Assistants' pursuant to the order of the Court, and
they have also been promoted as Deputy Tahsildars and
functioning in the said post for the last two years and that,
they should not be disturbed for the present. However, to
protect the interest of the impleaded Respondents 4 to 8 in
W.P.No.24117 of 2013, who have been directly recruited for the
post of 'Assistants' during December 2012 and January 2013, the
learned Single Judge held that the said Respondents must be
considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar from
the time they became entitled for such promotion.

¶31

5.The learned Single Judge further held that, after
deciding the inter se seniority between the Writ Petitioners in
W.P.No.24117 of 2013 and the Respondents 4 to 8 in the said Writ
Petition, the seniority of Respondents 4 to 8 in W.P.No.24117 of
2013 can be fixed in the post of Deputy Tahsildar.

¶32

6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and
perused the material documents available on record.

¶33

7.The learned Single Judge has clearly held that,
the promotion of the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.24117 of 2013 to
the post of 'Assistant' pursuant to the order of this Court
should not be a criteria for deciding the seniority and it has
to be strictly in accordance with the eligibility of the
candidates.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

8.Since, the learned Single Judge has considered
and directed the official Respondents in the Writ Petitions to
draw a seniority list, so that, candidates can be fixed in the
appropriate place based on their entitlement, and that, the
rights of the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.24117 of 2013 has been
protected, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge except, directing the Writ
Appellants herein to draw the seniority list at the earliest
point of time, i.e. within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order, so that the parties
concerned are placed in the seniority list as per their
eligibility, and further progress in their career can be
achieved. The Writ Appellants are directed to consider the case
of the parties including regular promotion/further promotion.

¶36

9.In fine, both Writ Appeals are disposed of with
the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected
C.M.P.Nos.10486 and 10488 of 2020 in W.A.No.826 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.10490 of 2020 in W.A.No.827 of 2020 are closed.

¶37

Assistant Registrar (CS-V)

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

(vm/aeb)

¶41

To:

¶42

1. The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶43

2. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶44

3. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai.

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

4.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai.

¶47

+1CC to Mr.S.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 44783

¶48

+3CCs to Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, Advocate, SR.No. 45170

¶49

W.A.Nos.826 & 827 of 2020

¶50

MG(CO)
B.VC (25/10/2021)

¶51

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Addl Chief Secretary v. K. Manigandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Addl Chief Secretary v. K. Manigandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Tamilnadu Vs Puspha

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Vs N.P.C.Jesudian

The Registrar of Cooperative Societies Vs P.Ramamoorthy

Irosa Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

The Teachers Recruitment Board Vs a.Subramanian

D.Gopalakrishnan Vs the State of Tamilnadu