Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India disposed of a batch of civil appeals arising from orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal concerning promotion lists under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The appeals involved two distinct service disputes. In the first set, the State of Tamil Nadu and others challenged a Tribunal order holding that under Rule 4(a) of the Rules, once an annual list was prepared, the Government had exhausted its power to make another list in the same year for promotion of subordinate officers. The dispute arose because 23 vacancies of Assistants in Pudukottai District were created due to bifurcation of new firkas and upgradation of Sub-Taluks into Taluks. The crucial date for preparation of the panel was March 15, 1979, on which date no vacancies existed or were anticipated. After new posts were created, a supplementary list was drawn and appointments made. The respondents challenged this before the Tribunal, which ruled that the Government was devoid of power to make a supplementary list, relying on Rule 4(a) and Government Order Ms. No.1227 dated December 10, 1981. In the second set, the State appealed against a Tribunal order directing inclusion of a respondent in the promotion list for Deputy Tehsildar. The respondent had qualified for promotion as on September 15, 1982, but a list was prepared two days earlier on September 13, 1982, when he was not yet qualified, and he was excluded. The Tribunal directed his inclusion. The Supreme Court first considered whether the Tribunal's order could be treated as a judgment or decree under Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that members of Administrative Tribunals are not Judges and their statements cannot be treated as decrees; they are merely orders under the Administrative Tribunals Act. On the merits of the first set, the Court analyzed Rule 4(a), which requires preparation of an annual list of approved candidates against estimated vacancies, taking into account permanent posts, temporary posts, anticipated sanctions, leave reserves, retirements, and promotions. The Court held that this rule did not denude the Government of power to prepare a supplementary list when new situations arose due to administrative exigencies such as creation of new posts. The Government Order Ms. No.1227/1981 was held inapplicable. Accordingly, the Tribunal's view was set aside and the appeals allowed. In the second set, the Court upheld the Tribunal's direction, noting that the list was prepared two days before the due date and the respondent was admittedly qualified as on the due date, so he was entitled to be empanelled after due consideration. The appeal was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Nature of Tribunal Orders - Order Not Judgment or Decree - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 2(8), 2(9); Administrative Tribunals Act - The Supreme Court examined whether orders of Administrative Tribunals can be termed 'judgment or decree'. It held that members of Tribunal are not Judges and their statement cannot be treated as decree; it is only an order for purposes of decision under Administrative Tribunals Act. Held that Tribunal's order is not a judgment or decree but an order (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Preparation of Promotion Lists - Supplementary List Permissible for Newly Created Posts - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, Rules 4(a), 39 - Rule 4(a) requires annual list of approved candidates against estimated vacancies but does not denude government of power to prepare supplementary list when new posts are created due to administrative exigencies like bifurcation of firkas and upgradation of sub-taluks. Government's G.O. Ms. No.1227/1981 not applicable. Held that Tribunal's view denying such power was incorrect and appeals allowed (Paras 1-3). C) Service Law - Promotion Eligibility - Candidate Qualified on Due Date Must Be Included - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 4(a) - A promotion list prepared two days before prescribed due date cannot exclude a candidate who became qualified on the due date. The Tribunal's direction to include the respondent's name in the list for Deputy Tehsildar was upheld as legally correct. Held that list must be prepared as on due date; appeal dismissed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal's order can be treated as a judgment or decree under Section 2(9) of CPC; whether Rule 4(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules denudes the Government of power to prepare a supplementary list for new vacancies created after the annual list due to administrative exigencies; whether a promotion list prepared two days before the prescribed due date can exclude a candidate who was qualified on the due date.
Final Decision
First set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 18886-87/91 & 9056-57/92) allowed; order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside. Second appeal (arising from SLP(C) No.11070/92) dismissed; Tribunal direction to include respondent's name in promotion list upheld. No costs.
Law Points
- Administrative Tribunal order is not judgment or decree under CPC
- Rule 4(a) permits supplementary list for new vacancies
- promotion list must be prepared as on due date
- candidate qualified on due date eligible for inclusion
- G.O. Ms. No.1227/1981 not applicable
