Dismissed¶57

M.Rasappan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Jan 2026WA/1037/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retrospective promotion; Registration Department; Tamil Nadu; Assistant Sub Registrar; writ appeal dismissed; Clause 15 Letters Patent; rule of reservation; revised temporary panel; Deputy Tahsildar; mutatis mutandis application of Revenue Department Service Rules; W.A.(MD) Nos.1522 of 2022 (Madurai Bench, 12.12.2023) relied upon; S.L.P.(C) No.3792 of 2021 dismissed 01.08.2024; G.O.(Ms).No.87 dated 06.03.2019; Apex Court judgment dated 11.09.2018; Madras High Court; S.M. Subramaniam J. and C. Kumarappan J.; 22-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants: no further interference with the order of the Writ Court; Writ Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.No.6540 of 2021) closed. ¶57

M.Rasappan Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether retrospective promotion is to be granted in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Registration Department employees (appellants), and whether the order of the Writ Court in W.P.No.17652 of 2020 calls for interference in this intra-court appeal.

¶44

Court's answer

The judgment relied upon relates to the Revenue Department, and therefore the principles and Service Rules applicable to it are to be applied mutatis mutandis to the Department of Registration as well.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

Since S.L.P.(C) No.3792 of 2021 has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.08.2024, the panel prepared by the Government granting retrospective effect is to be implemented, and no further interference with the order of the Writ Court is called for.

¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by thirteen Registration Department employees (Assistant Sub Registrars/Assistants) seeking to set aside the order dated 23-12-2020 in W.P.No.17652 of 2020, concerning retrospective promotion in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relying on the decision of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.1522 of 2022, etc. (dated 12.12.2023), the Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan, JJ.) held that the principles and Service Rules applicable to the Revenue Department apply mutatis mutandis to the Department of Registration. Noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed S.L.P.(C) No.3792 of 2021 on 01.08.2024, the Court held that the Government panel granting retrospective effect was to be implemented and that no further interference with the Writ Court's order was called for. Writ Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; connected C.M.P.No.6540 of 2021 closed. (Paragraphs 29 and 31 extracted in the judgment are those of the Madurai Bench judgment, not independent holdings of this Court.)

¶1

W.A No. 1037 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

W.A. No. 1037 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.6540 of 2021

¶9

M.Rasappan S/o.K.Muthusamy, Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District

¶10

K.C.Sadagopan S/o.K.M.Chakkarabani, Assistant, District Register Office, Kacheri Road, Kumbakonam

¶11

G.Tamilselvi Assistant, Sub Registrar Office, Chinnadharapuram, Karur District

¶12

V.Swaminathan Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Avinasi, Tirupur District

¶13

E.A.Mariyaraj S/o.R.Emmanuel, Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Coimbatore

¶14

T.Poongavanam S/o.Rajaram, Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Anniyur, Villupuram District

¶15

V.Dhasaram

¶16

S/o.Venkatakrishnan, Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Thirukovilur, Kallakurichi Dt

¶17

__________ Page 1 of 7

¶18

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

¶19

W.A No. 1037 of 2021

¶20

P.Latha Rani

¶21

D/o.S.Ponnusamy, Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore Dt

¶22

A.Jayachandran S/o.N.Arumugam, Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Tiruvannamalai

¶23

M.Manivannan S/o.T.V.MakaliAsarai, Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Erode

¶24

T.V.Ravikumar Assistant Sub Registrar Office, Salem East

¶25

Thanesh Kumar, S/o.Paul Raj, No.3/100, South Street, Puliamputhur, Thuthukudi District.

¶26

A. Mariappan, S/o.Agathiyandi, No.2/31, South Street, Kuthalaperi, Pogaimedu (Post), Sankaran Koil Taluk, Thenkasi District.

¶27

(Appellant Nos.12 and 13 impleaded vide order dated 22.01.2026 made in C.M.P.No.20820 of 2024 in W.A.No.1037 of 2021 by SMSJ and CKJ)

¶28

..Appellant(s)

¶29

¶30

State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009

¶31

The Inspector General of Registration Chennai-600 028

¶32

Page 2 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

W.A No. 1037 of 2021

¶35

The Registration Department SC/ ST and B.C. Employees General Welfare Sangam, rep by its General Secretary, No.18, Luz Church Road, Pattinampakkam, Chennai-28

¶36

..Respondent(s)

¶37

PRAYER : The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 23-12-2020 made in W.P..No.17652 of 2020

¶38

For Appellant(s): Mr. A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Mr. R. Krishnakumar for appellant Nos. 1 to 11

¶39

Mr. P. Vijendran for appellant Nos.12 and 13

¶40

For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Neelagandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu For R1 and R2 Mr. L.Chandrakumar for R3

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

¶43

Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶44

appellants fairly made a submission that the issue raised in the present intracourt appeal is regarding retrospective promotion to be granted in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said issue is no longer res integra and decided by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) Nos.1522 of 2022, etc., dated 12.12.2023.

¶45

__________ Page 3 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

W.A No. 1037 of 2021

¶48

2. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted

¶49

hereunder:-

¶50

29. Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court has clearly indicated that the Judgment would be applicable to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service also. More so, as we have pointed out earlier, the Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.87, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing, [Ser.3(2)] Section, dated 06.03.2019, and the consequential Circular, dated 29.06.2019, are sub judice before the Honorable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C).No.3792 of 2021. Even the revised temporary panel of Deputy Tahsildar is subject to the final orders to be passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition. However, at present, the revised temporary panel of Deputy Tahsildar is inconsonance with the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, which is upheld by the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 11.09.2018. The said Judgment is to be given effect to with effect from 11.09.2018, since the Judgments are to be implemented retrospectively is the settled principle. Thus, the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the respondents / writ petitioners, in this context, deserve no merit consideration.

¶51

31. While implementing the rule of reservation with retrospective effect, the consequence would be that many number of Scheduled Case / Scheduled Tribe candidates, whose names were not included earlier, will get an

¶52

__________ Page 4 of 7

¶53

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

¶54

W.A No. 1037 of 2021

¶55

opportunity with retrospective effect in the revised temporary panel. That exactly is the reason why in the revised temporary panel, several Scheduled Case / Scheduled Tribe candidates’ names have been included. This being the offshoot of the implementation of the rule of reservation, we do not find any infirmity in the revised temporary panel prepared by the District Collectors concerned.

¶56

The said judgment relates to the Revenue Department and therefore, the principles and Service Rules applicable are to be applied mutatis mutandis to the Department of Registration also.

¶57

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed in S.L.P. (C) No.3792 of 2021, on 01.08.2024. Therefore, the panel prepared by the Government granting retrospective effect is to be implemented. Hence, no further interference is called for with respect to the order of the Writ Court. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶58

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 22-01-2026

¶59

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶60

Asi/vsi

¶61

__________ Page 5 of 7

¶62

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

¶63

W.A No. 1037 of 2021