Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the Tamil Nadu government service concerning seniority and promotion of the appellant, R. Ramaswamy. He was initially appointed temporarily as a Project Officer in the Directorate of Tamil Culture Centre on May 21, 1979. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.M.S. No. 296 dated September 6, 1989, declaring that the post of Project Officer in the erstwhile Directorate of Traditional Tamil Arts and the post of Assistant Director in the Tamil Development Directorate were equivalent in status and carried an identical scale of pay. Later, by G.O.M.S. No. 88 dated May 21, 1990, the appellant's service in the cadre of Project Officer was regularized with effect from May 22, 1979, the date of his original appointment. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Assistant Directors on December 10, 1979 and April 25, 1981 respectively. When the appellant was temporarily promoted as Assistant Director and sought promotion to Deputy Director, a dispute arose regarding his seniority vis-à-vis respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The appellant approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 632/93. By order dated February 4, 1994, the Tribunal held that since respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were substantively holding the post of Assistant Directors, the appellant was junior to them, and the order of appointment by transfer indicated that his seniority claim would be determined later. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The legal issue was whether the appellant could be considered senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Assistant Directors. The appellant relied on Rule 35(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and the equivalence of posts. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 relied on Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Ad-hoc Rules for Temporary Posts of Assistant Directors, which provided that nothing in those rules shall adversely affect persons holding the post of Assistant Director on the date of issue of the Rules. The State contended that Rule 35(b) itself provided that where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying the sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority, and the Government had been considering the matter. The Supreme Court examined Rule 35(b) and noted that transfer from one class or category to another carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment for the purpose of seniority, and seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the rank in the class or category from which he was transferred. Given the Government orders equating the posts and regularizing the appellant's service from May 22, 1979, the Court held that the necessary implication was that the appellant was deemed to have been transferred with the same status and scale of pay as Assistant Director with effect from May 21, 1979. Consequently, he became senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were appointed later. The Court held that Rule 8 of the Ad-hoc Rules did not affect the claim for inter se seniority; it only prohibited adverse effects on persons named therein. The Court directed the Government to determine inter se seniority and consider the question of promotion to the next cadre, Deputy Director, according to rules. The appeal was allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority on Transfer - Rule 35(b) Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules - Transfer from one class or category of a service to another class or category carrying same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment for seniority; seniority of transferred person shall be determined with reference to rank in class or category from which transferred; where any difficulty or doubt arises, seniority shall be determined by appointing authority. Court applied this rule to appellant who was substantively Project Officer from 22.5.1979 and later deemed transferred to Assistant Director; held he must get seniority from that date, making him senior to respondent Nos.3 and 4 appointed later. Held that equivalence and regularization compel such implication. B) Service Law - Equivalence of Posts - Government Orders - G.O.M.S. No.296 dated 6.9.1989 declared Project Officer and Assistant Director posts equivalent in status and scale; G.O.M.S. No.88 dated 21.5.1990 regularized appellant's service in Project Officer cadre w.e.f. 22.5.1979. Court held necessary implication is that appellant held status and scale of Assistant Director in present Directorate from original date, supporting seniority claim. C) Service Law - Ad-hoc Rules - Rule 8 Tamil Nadu Ad-hoc Rules for Temporary Posts of Assistant Directors - Rule 8 prohibits causing adverse effect on persons holding Assistant Director posts on date of issue; does not govern inter se seniority between transferred officer and later appointees. Court held Rule 8 cannot defeat Rule 35(b) seniority determination. D) Service Law - Promotion Consideration - Deputy Director Cadre - Court directed Government to determine inter se seniority according to Rule 35(b) and consider promotion to Deputy Director according to rules; appeal allowed without costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant can be considered as senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Assistant Directors in the present Directorate.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Government directed to determine inter se seniority according to Rule 35(b) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and consider promotion to Deputy Director according to rules. No costs.
Law Points
- Rule 35(b) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules provides that transfer from one class or category to another carrying same pay or scale of pay is not first appointment and seniority is determined with reference to rank in previous class
- where difficulty or doubt arises
- seniority shall be determined by appointing authority
- equivalence of posts and regularization from original date imply holding status and scale of pay of equivalent post from original date
- Rule 8 of Ad-hoc Rules protects persons holding post on date of issue but does not affect inter se seniority
- seniority must be determined according to Rule 35(b) before considering promotion to next cadre.
