1984 (10) TMI 247 - HC - Indian Laws

Full Bench overrules lower courts, quashes G.O. Ms. No. 783 violating Rules 35(q) & 35(r). Fresh seniority lists ordered.

Syed Mohideen Versus Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Syed Mohideen Versus Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. - AIR 1986 Mad 188 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Government Order No. 783 dated 30th April 1981.2. Validity and implementation of G.O.Ms. No. 862 dated 27-4-1968.3. Determination of seniority based on the dates of acquiring the requisite qualifications.4. The interplay and precedence of administrative orders and statutory rules under Article 309 of the Constitution.5. The effect of statutory rules framed under Article 309 on pre-existing administrative orders.6. The binding nature and correctness of previous judicial decisions on seniority.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Constitutionality of Government Order No. 783 dated 30th April 1981The primary issue before the Full Bench was the constitutionality of Government Order No. 783 issued by the Rural Development Department on 30th April 1981. This order aimed to implement guidelines regarding the determination of seniority for persons appointed in the Panchayat Development Units in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. The order was issued to give effect to a decision by a learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 401, 402, and 403 of 1975, confirmed by a Division Bench. The Full Bench was called upon to consider the correctness of this view.Issue 2: Validity and Implementation of G.O.Ms. No. 862 dated 27-4-1968G.O.Ms. No. 862 dealt with the reversion of Managers and Accountants appointed after 16-10-1964 who had not passed the required departmental tests. The learned Judge initially held that the reversions were bad and that seniority should be based on the dates when the requisite qualifications were acquired. This decision was challenged, leading to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 783.Issue 3: Determination of Seniority Based on Dates of Acquiring Requisite QualificationsThe controversy arose from the implementation of G.O. Ms. No. 783, which affected the seniority of several employees. The Government Order aimed to fix seniority based on the dates of acquiring test qualifications, adversely impacting those who held posts of Managers or Accountants under the benefit of sub-rr. (q) and (r) of Rule 35 of the Special Rules.Issue 4: Interplay and Precedence of Administrative Orders and Statutory Rules under Article 309 of the ConstitutionThe Full Bench noted that G.O.Ms. No. 2155 dated 16-10-1964 was an administrative order and not a statutory rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The assumption that it had statutory force was unjustified. The statutory rules framed on 6-11-1972, 28-4-1973, 28-8-1973, and 9-8-1974 were not considered in the earlier decisions, leading to an erroneous assumption.Issue 5: Effect of Statutory Rules Framed under Article 309 on Pre-existing Administrative OrdersThe statutory rules framed under Article 309 took precedence over the administrative orders. The Full Bench emphasized that the rights of the concerned Government employees should be determined based on these statutory rules. Specifically, Rules 35(q) and 35(r) were crucial in determining the seniority and reversion of employees.Issue 6: Binding Nature and Correctness of Previous Judicial Decisions on SeniorityThe Full Bench concluded that the previous decisions by Mohan, J., and the Division Bench were rendered per incuriam, as they were based on the incorrect assumption that G.O.Ms. No. 2155 had statutory force. The principles of res judicata did not apply, and the Government was not precluded from contending the correct legal position in subsequent litigation.Conclusion:The Full Bench overruled the decision of Mohan, J., and the confirming judgment of the Division Bench. It quashed G.O. Ms. No. 783 dated 30-4-1981, which was found to be violative of Rules 35(q) and 35(r). The appointing authorities were directed to make fresh seniority lists in accordance with the statutory rules. The writ petitions seeking to implement G.O. Ms. No. 783 were dismissed, and the guidelines issued under G.O. Ms. No. 1581 dated 20-10-1982 were rendered ineffective.