N.Chidambaram Vs the Agricultural Production

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Letter No. 5284/AM1/2016-19 dated 24.07.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide Selection Grade to the petitioner from date of completion of 10 years service ie., 10.10.1989and award Special Grade with effect from 10.10.1999 with all attendant and monetary benefits.

¶22

For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

¶26

passed by the second respondent in letter No.5284/AM1/2016-19 dated 24.07.2018 and to quash the same and subsequently seeking direction against the respondent to provide selection grade.

¶27

2.Heard Mr.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.V.Muthukamatchi, for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶28

3.(a)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he was

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

appointed as Typist in Maduri Market Committee, on 27.11.1973. Thereafter, he was promoted as Supervisor on 10.10.1979 and subsequently, he was retired from service as Superintendant on 30.06.2009. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for a selection grade on completion of 10 years of service as Supervisor qua from 09.10.1989. But, the respondents by referring to G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 23.01.1986, as the petitioner did not officiate the post of senior writer, being the one of the qualification for the promotional post, not granted selection grade.

¶31

(b). But the contention of the petitioner is that, the non-posting of the petitioner to the senior writer post is an administrative lapse, and that for the sake of administrative lapse, the petitioner's right to be considered for promotion cannot be denied. The learned counsel would further submit that taking into consideration of the petitioner's subsequent posting as the senior writer, he was awarded with selection grade on 09.06.1992. At this juncture,

¶32

the learned counsel would invite the attention of the Court about the G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 07.08.1992, and would contend that the requirement of eligibility for the promotional post is not essential and relevant for consideration of selection grade. However without considering such position, the respondent has rejected the petitioner's claim for selection grade.

¶33

(c). The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Government has not considered the specific proposal of the fourth respondent and their admission to the effect that his non-posting of the petitioner to the post of senior clerk was an administrative lapse. Inspite of the above admission and proposal the Government has erroneously negatived the proposal. Hence, he prayed the selection grade with effect from 09.10.1989. Hence, he prays to interfere with the impugned order.

¶36

Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader by reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order. It is the submission of the petitioner that the reliance of G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 07.08.1992 will have no application to the petitioner as the G.O., came into effect on 07.08.1992, whereas even prior to the above G.O., within a period of 10 years from the eligibility based upon the then prevailing rule the petitioner was awarded with selection grade. He would further makes it clear that the old rule makes it mandatory to award selection grade only if the candidate possess all eligible qualification to be considered for the promotion. In the case in hand, since the petitioner did not officiate the post of senior clerk, which is essential qualification, he was not considered for selection grade and that from the date he acquired the qualification, within 10 years qua with effect from 09.06.1992 he was awarded with selection grade. Therefore, there are no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶37

5.I have given my anxious consideration of the submission made on

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

either side.

¶40

6.According to G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 23.01.1986, the employees became eligible for selection grade/special grade, if they have put in 10/20 years of satisfied service. Further according to the above G.O., to confer selection grade, he must fulfil all required qualifications, which is essential for an employee to be considered for the promotion. This position is not in serious dispute, and it would also be not in dispute that the petitioner was considered for selection grade, though appointed during 1979, from the date of acquiring necessary qualification in the year 1982 and within 10 years, he was awarded with selection grade.

¶41

Though this `writ petition filed during 2019 viz., after a period of 10 years from the date of petitioner's superannuation, he has been agitating this issue since 1996. The fact remains that the petitioner were consistent in his attempt seeking selection grade, on completion of 10 years of his initial appointment.

¶42

In order to substantiate his contention, he would rely upon G.O.Ms.No.276, dated 07.08.1992. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract hereunder:

¶43

9.According to the above G.O., the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

68 dated 23.01.1986 was partially modified. For ready reference, the scanned

¶46

image of the above G.O.Ms.No.68, is hereunder:

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

10.The penetrative reading of the G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 07.08.1992 does

¶52

not stipulate anything specifically towards retrospectivenes or prospectiveness. The very reading of the G.O., is in the nature of clarificatory and partially modified the existing G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 23.01.1986. Therefore, the contention put forth by the respondent that on and from 07.08.1992 only the modification will apply could not be a proper understanding, as the very G.O.Ms.No.276, categorically stipulates that all other conditions and guidelines contained in the Government Order first read above will remain unchanged.

¶53

11.Therefore, harmonious reading of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 23.01.1986 along with G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 07.08.1992, gives a clear indication that the G.O.Ms.No.276 will have the effect of retroactive as if this modification was in existence on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 23.01.1986. If that being the case, the petitioner is eligible for selection grade on completion of his 10 years, notwithstanding whether he was eligible for promotion or not. While coming to the dates, he was appointed on 10.10.1979. Therefore his actual date of completion of 10 years was on 09.10.1989 that being the case, he must be awarded with selection grade with effect from 09.10.1989.

¶54

12.The issue involved in this case may also be looked at in a different angle. According to G.O.Ms.No.68, for consideration of selection grade, the compliance of promotion criteria are essential. According to the respondent, the petitioner did not have the required qualification of officiation of “senior clerk”

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

post. But the fourth respondent, who is the employer of the petitioner had sent a proposal on 23.07.1996 which factum was not in serious dispute, wherein they categorically admitted that such non posting was only on account of administrative lapse. As we know, it is well settled principles of law that any administrative lapse cannot be put against the individual and we cannot allow the individual to forgo his entitlement on the ground of administrative lapse. Here, when the fourth respondent categorically states that there was an administrative lapse, notwithstanding the other fact the first respondent ought to have been considered for selection grade positively by reckoning his date of initial appointment. Therefore, this Court finds justification in the petitioner's contention.

¶57

In the result, the impugned order dated 24.07.2018 is hereby quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. As a sequitur, this Court directs the respondent to provide selection grade to the petitioner with effect from 09.10.1989 with all consequential and monetary benefits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.

¶58

18.11.2025

¶59

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶60

Ns

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

To

¶63

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner cum Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-09.