M.Sukumar Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent and direct the 2^nd respondent to comply with the direction passed by this Court in WP.No.26095 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022 to dispose the petitioners’ statutory Appeal dated 30.05.2022 and 01.08.2022 on merits and in accordance with law, and direct the 3^rd respondent to redraw the panel for the post of Tahsildar and the Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2004 to 2021. (Prayer amended vide Order dated 09.03.2026 made in W.M.P.No.13750/2024 in WP.No.11124/2024)

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sutharsanasundar

¶21

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.R.Balaji Government Advocate for R1 to R4

¶22

Order

¶23

The writ petition was originally filed seeking a Certiorarified

¶24

mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to comply with the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.26095 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022 to dispose of the petitioners’ statutory appeals dated 30.05.2022 and 01.08.2022 on merits and in accordance with law and consequently to direct the 3^rd respondent to redraw the panel for the posts of Tahsildar and the Deputy Tahsildar for the years 2004 to 2021.

¶25

__________ Page2 of 8

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 11124 of 2024

¶28

The petitioner would submit that the 1^st petitioner was appointed

¶29

as a Typist on 31.07.2009 and the 2^nd petitioner was appointed a Junior Assistant with the 3^rd respondent. Their services were regularized on 31.07.2009 and 01.08.2011 respectively. By proceedings dated 07.03.2018, the 3^rd respondent had published the inter se seniority list in respect of the promoted Assistants, directly recruited Assistants and Pro Revenue Assistants as per the Special Rules prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. Pursuant to the representations made by the Assistants of Vellore District, the 2^nd respondent by order dated 04.01.2019 relaxed the Rules in order to include their names. In view of the same, several litigations arose and ultimately, the 4^th respondent by proceedings dated 14.07.2021 published the inter se seniority list referring to the orders of this Court and the amendment made in G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 01.09.2020. Based on the instructions of the 2^nd respondent, the 3^rd respondent by proceedings dated 28.02.2022 published the revised panel list for the years 2004 to 2020 to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in Kanyakumari Revenue District. Since the petitioners’ names were not included the said panel, they submitted an appeal dated 01.08.2022 to the respondents contending that the panel had been revised without following the procedures prescribed under Annexure IX Rule 39(b) (ii). However,

¶30

Page3 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 11124 of 2024

¶33

without considering the appeal, the respondents were attempting to make promotions as per the revised panel. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court in W.P.No.26095 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the appeal dated 01.08.2022. This Court, by order dated 02.11.2022, directed the 2^nd respondent to pass final orders on the petitioners’ appeal on merits and also directed the respondents to keep the matter in abeyance till the final orders were passed on the petitioners’ appeal. Despite the above, since the respondents had not passed any order on the petitioners’ appeal, Contempt Petition No.2370 of 2023 was filed. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the orders of this Court had been complied with, the said Contempt Petition was closed. However, the respondents are yet to pass an order on the petitioners’ appeal dated 30.05.2022. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶34

When the matter had come up on 25.04.2024, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the orders had already been passed by the 1^st respondent on the appeal filed by the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners sought time to amend the relief to one for Certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the 1^st

¶35

Page4 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 11124 of 2024

¶38

respondent and for consequential direction. Subsequently, W.M.P.No.13750 of 2024 was filed seeking to amend the prayer which was allowed by orders of this Court on 09.03.2026. Thereafter, a counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents.

¶39

It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 08.12.2023 which is the impugned order in and by which the 1^st respondent had directed the District Collector, Krishnagiri to notify the revised redrawn panel of the Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar. This order was passed in the appeal. However, this Court feels that it would be doing injustice to the petitioners to once again call upon them to amend the writ petition more particularly when the order passed in appeal has already been placed for consideration of this Court in the typed set of papers. Therefore, while considering the said proceedings of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration No.Ser:3(2)/01476/2022 dated 08.12.2023, which is the order that has been passed on the appeal filed by the petitioners, the petitioners have questioned the inter se seniority in a very great detail in their appeal. However, the appellate authority has not considered any of the arguments that have been put forward by the petitioners and has passed the following order:

¶40

__________ Page5 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 11124 of 2024

¶43

“7) In the circumstances stated above, the District Collector, Krishnagiri is hereby permitted to notify the revised redrawn panels of Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar Panels in order to comply the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 11.09.2018 in C.A.No.9334/2018 in SLP (C) Nos.5588, 7651/2006 and judgment dated 12.03.2019 in C.A.Nos.251-256/2015 and judgment dated 22.01.2016 in SLP.(C).Nos.2886/2016 and orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dated 23.12.2020 in W.P.No.2054/2020 and judgment dated 02.11.2022 in W.P.No.26095/2022 and send a copy of revised list of re-drawn panels of Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar to this office at the earliest.”

¶44

A mere perusal of the same would show that the 1^st respondent has not taken into consideration the representation of the petitioners’ at all and has proceeded to pass a cursory order, which cannot be sustained.

¶45

Without traversing through the merits of the case, it would suffice if the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 3^rd respondent, who shall after issuing notice to the petitioners and affording them a personal hearing, pass orders on merits and in accordance

¶46

Page6 of 8

¶47

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

¶48

WP No. 11124 of 2024

¶49

with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

21-07-2026

¶51

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

¶52

To

¶53