Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition filed by 19 Assistant Section Officers (ASOs) and Assistant Section Officer-cum-Programmers before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners challenged an amendment to Annexure-V of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954, notified via G.O. Ms. No. 124 dated 13.11.2020, which introduced an 8:1 ratio among holders of the posts of Assistant Section Officer and Assistant Section Officer-cum-Programmer for recruitment by transfer to the post of Section Officer. They also assailed the consequent promotion of private respondents (respondents 3 to 13) to Section Officer, and sought a direction to prepare a combined seniority list based on their dates of appointment and to promote them with retrospective effect from 2019. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government of Tamil Nadu took an administrative decision to withdraw the 8:1 ratio. This decision was communicated to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) via letter dated 27.08.2024, in which the government also requested a proposal to amend the Regulations. The TNPSC, however, wrote to the Additional Secretary indicating that the writ petition was still pending and that the decision would be implemented upon its disposal. At the hearing, the Advocate General appearing for TNPSC submitted the government's decision. The petitioners' senior counsel expressed an apprehension regarding employees who had been temporarily promoted. The court, noting that no interim order was in place, observed that the TNPSC ought to have implemented the government decision earlier. Nevertheless, since the primary relief sought by the petitioners—withdrawal of the 8:1 ratio—had been redressed by the government, the court held that no further adjudication on merits was necessary. It directed respondents 1 and 2 to implement the government's decision and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. Regarding temporary promotions, the court stated they should be dealt with under the relevant service rules. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Disposal of Writ Petition - Mootness - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Where the government decision renders the relief sought by the petitioners redundant, the writ petition becomes infructuous and the High Court may dispose of it without adjudicating on merits, directing implementation of the government decision. The court noted that the Government of Tamil Nadu had decided to withdraw the 8:1 ratio, which was the basis of the challenge, thereby redressing the grievance. Held, no further adjudication is necessary; the writ petition is disposed of with direction to implement the decision within six weeks. (Paras 1-5) B) Service Law - Promotion - Inter-se Seniority - Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954 - The ratio of 8:1 fixed for recruitment by transfer to the post of Section Officer from Assistant Section Officers and Assistant Section Officer-cum-Programmers was withdrawn by the Government, leading to the resolution of the dispute over combined seniority. The court directed that the temporary promotions, if any, be dealt with under the relevant service rules. Held, the petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to Annexure-V of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954 and the consequential promotions were illegal, and whether the petitioners were entitled to combined seniority list for promotion to Section Officer
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous in view of the government's decision to withdraw the 8:1 ratio. The court directed respondents 1 and 2 to implement the government's decision and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. No order as to costs. Temporary promotions, if any, to be dealt with under the relevant service rules.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Once the government takes a decision that grants the relief sought
- the court need not adjudicate on merits and may simply direct implementation
- administrative decisions must be implemented unless stayed by court
