High Court Bench dismissed review applications filed under CPC seeking to quash a division bench order on Seniority List of Copyists and Typists. Court held no error apparent existed as merger and seniority rules were administrative decisions not contested earlier.
All review applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21-03-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM And THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
Review Application (W) Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
And
MP Nos.2 of 2011, 1, 3 of 2012 and 1, 2 of 2013 in
WP No.5969 of 2008
3.P.Subha
.. Review Petitioners in Rev.Appn.117/2011
Page 1 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
7.G.Uthayaraj 8.K.Saraswathy 9.N.Saraswathi 10.D.Radha 11.S.N.Padmavathy 12.P.Prabhakaran 13.B.Gopalakrishnan 14.S.Chitra 15.N.Selvam 16.P.Thambidurai 17.S.Sivaganapathy 18.M.Sathiyabama 19.G.S.Vasanthi 20.S.Krishnaveni 21.R.Vasanthakumari 22.S.Balakrishnan 23.C.D.Sivakumar 24.R.Ramaraj 25.T.Raja 26.S.Arumugam 27.K.Sudhandra 28.R.Malliga 29.V.Paulmani 30.S.Vathsala 31.K.Sivagamy 32.M.Sarojini 33.S.Kamalaveni .. Review Petitioners in Rev.Appn.106/2012 1.K.Saleem 2.A.Punniyanathan 3.T.Vijay 4.A.Y.Victor Arulnithy 5.N.Sreedharan 6.S.Yogaraj 7.R.Padmavathy 8.S.Kannan .. Review Petitioners in Rev.Appn.32/2013 Page 2 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
-vs-
1.K.A.Baskaran
2.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home (Courts) Department, Chennai-600 009.
Review Application No.64 of 2011 has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order passed by this Court in WP No.5969 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008.
Review Application No.117 of 2011 has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order passed by this Court in WP No.5969 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008.
Page 3 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
Review Application No.106 of 2012 has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order passed by this Court in WP No.5969 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008.
Review Application No.32 of 2013 has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order passed by this Court in WP No.5969 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008.
For Review Petitioners in all Review Applications : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondent-1 in Review Application Nos.64/2011 and 106/2012 : Not Ready in Notice
Page 4 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
C O M M O N O R D E R
[COMMON ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE
BY S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The review applications have been instituted to review the order
dated 17.07.2008 passed in WP No.5669 of 2018.
Page 5 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
of posts like Junior Assistant, Copyist, Readers, Examiners and Junior Bailiffs etc. They were appointed on different dates. Particularly, some of the review petitioners were appointed prior to implementation of V Pay Commission implemented with effect from 01.06.1988 and some of the review petitioners were appointed after 01.06.1988.
of issuance of Combined Seniority List of Copyist and Typist, they are
Page 6 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
deprived of their promotional opportunities as per the ratio prescribed under the Rules. Consequent to publication of Combined Seniority List, some of the review petitioners faced reversion orders. Thus review petitioners have filed the present review applications.
from the year 1993 onwards. Therefore, the seniority is to be computed from the date of appointment and not from the earlier date. On account of
Page 7 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
erroneous application of Rule 36(b) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, the review petitioners suffered seniority and lost their opportunity to secure promotion to the higher post.
merger of the posts of Typist and Copyist and also the Combined Seniority List prepared consequentially.
Page 8 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
General of Madras High Court, may hold good in respect of Copyists and Typists, who were appointed prior to 01.06.1988, but such principle cannot be followed for Copyists and Typists, appointed/promoted after 01.06.1988. Since 01st June 1988, if any Copyist has been appointed by promotion as Typist, for all purposes, as they are to be treated to have been transferred to the post of Typists, the scale of pay being identical in such cases, Rule 36(b) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, shall apply for determination of seniority. The date of first appointment will be the criteria for determination of seniority between Copyists and Typists, if appointed, since 01st June 1988 and the guidelines issued by the Registrar-General of Madras High Court, dated 11.01.2008, to that extent, held as illegal. The Principal District Judge and Appointing Authorities, cannot act on the basis of the letter dated 11.01.2008, for determination of seniority of Copyists and Typists, but if appointed/transferred/promoted on or after 01.06.1988, and provisional seniority list, if so prepared on the basis of letter dated 11.01.2008, is to be recalled.
Page 9 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
that the Copyists and Typists appointed prior to 01.06.1988, are to be treated as different class and the Typists and Copyists appointed after 01.06.1988 are to be treated as unified single class. After 01.06.1988, the scale of pay became identical for Copyists and Typists. Therefore, Combined Seniority List was prepared based on the date of appointment in the cadre as per Rule 36 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules.
interim stay granted in the review applications, the review petitioners, who faced reversion order, were allowed to continue in the same post and as of now many of them have retired from service.
employer. Merger of post cannot be questioned by the employees, as it is the administrative decision taken in the interest of the public administration. The merger took place only after implementation of V Pay Commission with effect from 01.06.1988. The scale of pay of the posts of Typist and Copyist subsequently became identical. Once the scale of pay became identical, the
Page 10 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
post of Copyist was merged with the post of Typist and treated as single category of Typist. Thereafter, all the employees appointed either in the post of Copyists or in the post of Typists, are to be treated only as Typists and consequently, Seniority List was prepared based on their respective date of appointment/promotion in the post.
not contested in the writ proceedings before the Division Bench. The Division Bench recorded that the parties have not seriously objected the merger. Therefore, the Division Bench considered the issue relating to Combined Seniority List. Once the merger became final, the post of Copyist and Typist became single category and all employees became Typists. Therefore, the Seniority List published based on the respective date of appointment of employees is hold good.
made to question the validity of merger, which cannot be done in view of the fact that the merger post is an administrative decision and the prerogative of
employer. Further the issue was not contested in the writ proceedings. Page 11 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
error apparent warranting interference by invoking the review jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, all the review applications are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
(K.RAJASEKAR,J.)
21-03-2024
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn
To
Page 12 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND
Page 13 of 14
Review Application Nos.64 and 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
Svn
Rev.Application Nos.64, 117 of 2011, 106 of 2012 and 32 of 2013
21-03-2024
Page 14 of 14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether error apparent on record warranting interference in review matters concerning seniority of Copyists and Typists exists.
Whether merger of posts and preparation of Combined Seniority List were questioned by parties in original writ proceedings.
Whether review applications lodged by non-parties challenging administrative policy decisions on post merger are maintainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
D.Vijayakumar
M.Sukumaran
State of Tamil Nadu
S.M. Subramaniam
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
