K.Sekar Vs The Commissioner of Revenue Administration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

 W.P.No.18903 of 2021

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.20164 & 20165 of 2021

¶8

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶9

K.Sekar ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs

¶11

1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
 Government of Tamil Nadu,
 Ezhilgam Building,
 Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶12

2.The District Collector,
 Collectorate,
 Chengalpattu District,
 Chengalpattu.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
 Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
 Maduranthakam.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar,
 Taluk Office,
 Cheyyur, Chengalpattu District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certtiorarified
mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the
promotion seniority panel dated 14.07.2020 on the file of the
second respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct
the respondents to reconstruct the promotion seniority panel to
the post of Village Administrative Officer from the post of
Village Assistants.

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Subrahmaniam

¶17

For Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
 Government Advocate

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner
was appointed as a Village Assistant. The minimum qualification
that was prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the post
of Village Assistant was V standard pass upto a maximum
qualification of X standard fail.

¶20

2. This is the case of the petitioner that several
persons who were over qualified had applied to the post of
Village Assistant and got high mark over were accommodated in
the light of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.631, Revenue
Department dated 07.11.2008 wherein, those Village Assistants
who qualified themselves by passing their X standard and having
Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) were also allowed to
be permitted to the next promotion to the post of Village
Administrative Officers.

¶21

3. It is submitted that some of the appointees who were
appointed along with the petitioner were already over qualified
and were not entitled to be appointed as Village Administrative
Officers and therefore their appointments and their subsequent
promotions were clearly contrary to the prevailing Government
Orders. In this connection, the petitioner has sent
representations on 27.07.2020 to the respondents and thereafter
on 02.09.2020 to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and on
21.07.2021 to the District Collector, Chengalpattu. However,
these representations have not evoked any response from the
respondents.

¶22

4. Appearing on behalf of the the respondents, learned
Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the
representations of the petitioner will be considered and
appropriate orders will be passed by the second respondent
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.

¶23

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

¶24

5. I have considered the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate
for the respondents.

¶25

6. As a matter of fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
recently has passed an order on 07.09.2021 in Employers in
relation to the Management of Bhalgora Area (Now Kustore Area)
of M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Workmen being represented
by Janta Mazdoor Sangh in SLP (C) No.29873 of 2016 considered
several decisions including that of the decision rendered in
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and
others Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others, (2017) 8 SCC 670,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 4 had held as
under:-

¶26

“4. The batch of cases with which the court
is confronted involves individuals who sought the
benefit of public employment on the basis of a claim
to belong to a beneficiary group which has, upon
investigation been found to be invalid. Despite the
invalidation of the claim to belong to a Scheduled
Caste or, as the case may be, a Scheduled Tribe or
backward community, the intervention of the Court is
invoked in the exercise of the power of judicial
review. The basis for the invocation of jurisdiction
lies in an assertion that equities arise upon a
lapse of time and these equities are capable of
being protected either by the High Court (in the
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226) or
by this Court (when it discharges the constitutional
function of doing complete justice under Article
PART A 142) The present batch of cases then raises
the fundamental issue as to whether such equities
are sustainable at law and, if so, the limits that
define the jurisdiction of the court to protect
individuals who have secured access to the benefit
of reservation inspite of the fact that they do not
belong to the caste, tribe or class for whom
reservation is intended.

¶27

7. In Bharat Coking Coal Limited case (referred to
supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the
Appointing Authorities with the following observations:-

¶28

“17. Fraudulent practice to gain public

¶29

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

¶30

employment cannot be countenanced to be permitted by
a Court of law. The workmen here, having hoodwinked
the Government Undertaking in a fraudulent manner,
must be prevented from enjoying the fruits of their
ill-gotten advantage. The sanctity of public
employment, as a measure of social welfare and a
significant source of social mobility, must be
protected against such fraudulent process which
manipulates and corrupts the selection process.
Employment schemes floated by the State for targeted
groups, can absorb a finite number of workmen. To
abuses the legitimate process therefore would mean
deprivation of employment benefits to rightful
beneficiaries. The Courts as sentinel of justice
must strive to ensure that such employment
programmes are not manipulated by deceitful
middlemen, thereby setting up a parallel mechanism
of Faustian Bargain. Often, desperate job aspirants
resort to such measures to compete for limited
vacancies, but this Court cannot condone false
projections so as to circumvent the statutorily
prescribed procedure for appointments. Such illegal
practices must be interdicted by the Courts.”

¶31

8. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the
representations of the petitioner in the light of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pass appropriate orders within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order
in accordance with law and on merits. If persons who were
appointed were already over qualified, steps may be taken to
remove them from service after due notice to them.

¶32

9. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above
observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶35

// True Copy //

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

arb/nst

¶38

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

¶39

To

¶40

1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
 Government of Tamil Nadu,
 Ezhilgam Building,
 Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
 Collectorate,
 Chengalpattu District,
 Chengalpattu.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
 Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
 Maduranthakam.
4.The Tahsildar,
 Taluk Office,
 Cheyyur, Chengalpattu District.
+1CC to The Government Pleader, SR.No. 46181
W.P.No.18903 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.20164 & 20165 of 2021
PL(CO)
B.VC (13/10/2021)

¶41

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

K.Sekar v. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sekar v. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Anjalatchi Ammal Vs The State Rep. by

The General Secretary Vs The Chief General / Oic

Estate of Late T.P.Ramaswamy Pillai Vs Special Deputy Collector

N.Vaithegi Vs The Chairman and Director General of Police

R.Rengaraj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Saraswathi Vs The Commissioner of Municipal Administration