2009 (4) TMI 911

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commission'). Though the minimum educational qualification for Junior Assistant was S.S.L.C., it is alleged that even at the time of their selection to the post of Junior Assistants, most of the appellants were graduates or post graduates, and many completed their graduation subsequently while in service. 6. For appointment to the post of Assistant there can be promotions from amongst the Junior Assistants, and there can also be direct recruitment through the competitive examination held by the Commission. The minimum qualification for directly recruited Assistant is graduation. 7. The promotion for Assistants is to the post of Deputy Tehsildar, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. On being promoted as Deputy Tehsildars an Assistant is transferred from the Ministerial Service to the Revenue Subordinate Service. 8. The promotee Assistants, i.e. Assistants who were promoted from the post of Junior Assistants and were not direct recruits, filed O.A. No.5710 of 1992 and connected petitions before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai praying for quashing G.O.Ms. No.884, Revenue Department, Tamil Nadu Government dated 12.8.1992 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... first vacancy that follows the carried over vacancies. A similar proviso has also been added in respect of an Assistant appointed by Direct Recruitment in the District Revenue Unit.   11. It was submitted by Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned counsel for the appellant, that the impugned amendment adversely affected the vested right of the promotee Assistants for promotion as Deputy Tehsildars. Some illustrations given by learned counsel are as follows: - In Coimbatore District, the following Assistants belonging to the list of promotee Assistants for year 1991 are still working as Assistants for no fault of theirs. 1) R. Saraswathy (2) V. Parvatham (3) C. Manoharan (4) R. Subramaniam (5) T. Sivajothi (6) V. Prema Sundari (7) S. Subramanian (8) V. Narasimhan (9) D. Dhanapal (10) K. Thangavelu (11) S. Rathina (12) S. Rathinaswami (13) D. Lieon Peter. On the other hand, a directly recruited Assistant, by name Sivasubramaniam, whose name was included in the list of Assistants for the year 2004 of Coimbatore District, has been included in the list of Deputy Tehsildars of the District for the year 2008 and he is working as Deputy Tehsildar. - In Ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate that Probationary Revenue Inspectors enjoyed preferential treatment since the relevant Rule 8A which dealt with the Probationary Revenue Inspectors in the erstwhile Annexure VIII to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services only stated that the seniority of the persons recruited as Probationary Revenue Inspectors in any year shall be fixed first in the list of Assistants appointed in the Revenue Department during the year. Hence she contended that the Probationary Revenue Inspectors were given seniority over other Assistants of the same year alone i.e. in the list of Assistants alone and not in the list of Deputy Tehsildars. 15. In our opinion, it is not necessary to decide this controversy because it will make no difference for deciding this case. 16. By the amendment dated 7.2.1995, the direct recruit Assistants who complete 5 years service and fulfill some other criteria are placed in the approved list for promotion as Deputy Tehsildar above his seniors who are promotee Assistants. It is contended that this is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 17. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the rationale for givi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned amendment and interpret it as inapplicable to those promotee Assistants who are also graduates/post graduates. In other words, the impugned amendment will only enable the direct recruits to be placed above those promotee Assistants who are non graduates for the purpose of promotion as Deputy Tehsildar. 23. It is true that in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed that though the persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could, for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. However, in Mohammad Shujat Ali & others vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1974 SC 1631, another Constitution Bench of this Court qualified the rule laid down in Triloki Nath Khosa's case (supra) and observed that for promotion to a higher post, discrimination based on educational qualifications not obligated by the nature of duties or responsibilities of the higher post would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 24. In Roop Chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi Development ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n direct recruits and those promotee Assistants who have acquired the graduation qualification whether before joining as Junior Assistant or thereafter. Once a promotee becomes a graduate we cannot see any rational basis for discrimination against him vis-`-vis direct recruits. 26. As regards the non graduate promotee Assistants, we are of the opinion that ordinarily it is for the State Government to decide whether their qualification has a reasonable relation to the nature of duties and responsibilities that go with and are attendant on the promotional post of Deputy Tehsildar. It is true that as observed in Roop Chand Adlakha's case (supra) there may, conceivably, be cases where the differences in the educational qualifications may not be sufficient to give any preferential treatment to one class of candidates as against another, and whether the classification is reasonable or not must, therefore, necessarily depend upon the facts of each case and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant time. However, the question whether the difference in the educational qualifications is sufficient to give preferential treatment to one class of candidates against another, should in o....