(Prayer WP(MD).No.671 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent in Letter No.12299/E6 (2)/2021-3 dated 21.09.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-5 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No. Gna3/11568/2020 dated 28.12.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/1990/2021 dated 30.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to grant all attendant and monetary benefits to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officer.

WP(MD).No.672 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent in Letter No.12299/E6 (2)/2021-4 dated 21.09.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-5 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No. Gna3/11568/2020 dated 28.12.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/13501/2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to grant all attendant and monetary benefits to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officer.

WP(MD).No.673 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent in Letter No.12299/E6 (2)/2021-2 dated 21.09.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-4 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-5 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No. Gna3/11568/2020 dated 28.12.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.Aa4/5255/2021 dated 30.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to grant all attendant and monetary benefits to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officer.

WP(MD).No.674 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent in Letter No.12299/E6 (2)/2021-5 dated 21.09.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-1 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-2 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No. Gna3/22441/2021-3 dated 04.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to grant all attendant and monetary benefits to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officer.)

Common Order

1. These four writ petitions have been filed by Deputy Block Development Officers working in Rural Development Department, Tirunelveli District challenging the revision of seniority and order of reversion.

(A).Facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:

2. All the four writ petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants on temporary basis through Employment Exchange in the year 2003 when there was a strike by the Government employees. They were regularised in the year 2009 after passing a special examination conducted by TNPSC. Out of the four writ petitioners, two of them namely N.Sankaran and M.Kathiravan, have passed the departmental examinations in May 2012 and also passed Bhavanisagar Training. Their probation was declared on 24.05.2012 and 28.05.2012 respectively. Their names were included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 2012 and they were granted temporary promotion on 03.12.2012. Their names were included for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer for the year 2017 and they were promoted as Deputy Block Development Officers on 27.03.2018.

3. As far as the other two writ petitioners namely Kasali and Subramanian are concerned, they were regularised in the year 2009 by way of a special examinations conducted by TNPSC. Both of them cleared departmental examination in December 2011. The said Kasali passed Bhavanisagar examination on 25.05.2012 and the said Subramanian has cleared Bhavanisagar training on 04.10.2012. Their probation was declared in 23.12.2011. Their names were included in the panel for promotion in the year 2012 to the post of Assistant. Kasali is temporarily promoted as Assistant on 03.12.2012 and Subramanian was promoted on 01.02.2014. Their names were included in the panel for the year 2017 for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer. Based upon the panel, Kasali was promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 27.03.2018 and Subramanian was promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 03.11.2017.

4. TNPSC had conducted a direct recruitment to the post of Assistant and the private respondents namely respondents 5 and 6 were appointed as Assistants on 03.12.2012. They had filed WP(MD).No.11678 of 2017 before this Court challenging seniority granted to the promotee Assistants ahead of the directly recruited Assistant. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16.06.2014 and they preferred WA(MD).No.885 of 2018. The writ appeal was dismissed on 25.10.2018 with an observation that the temporary promotion granted in favour of promotees has been regularised by the Government with effect from the initial date of temporary promotion and having not challenged the said regularization, the inter se seniority cannot be refixed.

5. Thereafter, they approached the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department questioning the panel for promotion for the post of Assistant to Deputy Block Development Officer for the year 2016, 2017 and 2018. The directly recruited assistants had attacked the grant of temporary promotion in favour of the writ petitioners herein along with others on the ground that all four of them were not qualified to be included in the panel for temporary promotion to the post of Assistant as on the crucial date namely 15.03.2012. According to them, all the four writ petitioners were not qualified on the said crucial date and therefore, their names should have been included only in 2013 panel. As a consequence, when the seniority is revised in the cadre of Assistant and their names could not find place in the panel for the year 2017 for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer.

6. The Director Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department considered the said representation after hearing the objection raised by the writ petitioners herein, and passed an order on 13.12.2018. As far as the petitioners Sankaran and Kathiravan are concerned, it was found that they have cleared in the departmental examination only in May 2012 which is beyond the crucial date namely 15.12.2012. Therefore, their names cannot be included in the panel for the year 2012. The petitioners namely Kasali and Subramanian are concerned, they had cleared Bhavanisagar training only in May 2012 and October 2012 which is also beyond the cruical date namely 15.03.2012. Therefore, the Director found that all four of them were not qualified to be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant in the year 2012.

7. Challenging the order of Director, the petitioners had preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent has passed an order on 21.09.2021 confirming the order of the second respondent namely the Director. As a consequence, the District Collector has passed an order on 04.12.2021 revising the seniority of Sankaran and Kathiravan and a consequential order was passed by him on 28.12.2021 reverting them from the post of Deputy Block Development Officer to that of the Assistant. Thereafter, the said Sankaran and Karthiravan have been issued with a relieving order on 30.12.2021. These orders are put to challenge in the present writ petitions.

8. As far as Kasali and Subramanian are concerned, the first respondent has passed an order on 21.09.2021 confirming the order of the second respondent. Three consequential orders were passed by the District Collector on 04.12.2021 amending the date of declaration of probation, revision of seniority and deleting their names from 2017 panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer and a consequential order was passed on 28.12.2021 reverting them from the post of Deputy Block Development Officer to that of the Assistant. These orders are also under challenge.

9. Since the facts in all the four cases are intertwined, they are tagged together and a common order is being passed.

(B).Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side are as follows:

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the name of all the four petitioners were included in the panel for the year 2012 for promoting them as Assistant. Thereafter, their names were included in the panel for the year 2017 for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer. After 9 years, the present impugned orders has been passed by the first respondent revising the seniority and reverting them back to the post of Assistant. After such a long delay, the present orders should not have been passed.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the order passed in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018 and contended that when the previous attempt made by the direct recruitees to place them ahead of the promotees was not successful. Without considering the said judgment, the present impugned order has been passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the present impugned orders are in violation of the order of this Court in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018. All other orders passed by the respondents 3 and 4 are only the consequential orders revising the seniority and reverting them as Assistant. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petitions and to restore their seniority and promotion with all attendant

12. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents submitted that Sankaran and Kathiravan had cleared the departmental test only in May 2012, after the crucial date namely 15.03.2012, for inclusion in the panel for promotion in the year 2012. Without looking at the same, erroneously their names were included in the panel. When the mistake was found out, it has been rectified. As far as Kasali and Subramanian are concerned, they did not clear the Bhavanisagar training in their first attempt and they cleared it only in May 2012 and October 2012 which is beyond the crucial date namely 15.03.2012. Therefore, their names also should not have been included in the panel for the year 2012. In such circumstances, when the names of all the four writ petitioners are moved to 2013 panel, quite naturally the seniority of the writ petitioners would get affected and their names cannot be included in the panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2017. In such circumstances, he submitted that the mistake having been found out, the authorities are entitled to reverse the seniority.

13. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that the seniority of the writ petitioners was continuously under the litigation before this Court and therefore, they cannot contend that after a period of 9 years, their seniority has been revised and they have been reverted. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the orders passed by the official respondents.

14. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the crucial date for inclusion of the names of Junior Assistant for promotion to the post of Assistant is 15th March every year. All the petitioners having not been qualified on the 15th March 2012, their names ought not to have been included in their panel for the said year. Erroneously their names have been included and they also got a consequential promotion to the next level namely to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer. Therefore, the direct recruitees had given a representation to the second respondent challenging the panel to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer for the year 2017. In such circumstances, after considering the submissions on either side, the second respondent was pleased to pass an order deleting the name of the writ petitioners from the panel for the year 2017 for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the authorities.

15. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

16. As far as the petitioners namely Sankaran and Kathiravan, they have cleared the departmental test only in May 2012. The crucial date for inclusion of names for promotion to the post of Assistant is 15th of March every year. Therefore, both of them were not qualified for inclusion of their names in 2012 panel. However, their names have been erroneously included in the said panel, probably relying upon the fact that they have cleared Bhavanisagar training prior to the crucial date. Based upon their inclusion in the panel for the year 2012, both of them were temporarily promoted as Assistant on 03.12.2012. Based upon their seniority in the cadre of Assistant, their names were included in the panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer for the year 2017 and got their promotion as Deputy Block Development Officer on 27.03.2018. When the names of these writ petitioners can get included for the post of Assistant only in the year 2013, inclusion of their names in the panel for the year 2017 for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer would also get affected.

17. As far as the petitioners name namely Kasali and Subramanian are concerned, they have cleared the departmental test in December 2011, they were not able to clear the Bhavanisagar training in their first attempt. They have cleared it on 25.12.2012 and 04.10.2012 which is beyond the crucial date namely 15.03.2012. They managed to get their names included in the panel for the year 2012 for promotion to the post of Assistant and they got temporary promotion on 03.12.2012 and 01.12.2014 respectively. Consequently, their names also got included in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2017 and they got promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 27.03.2018 and 03.11.2017 respectively. These petitioners have cleared Bhavanisagar training only in May 2012, erroneously their probation has been declared in December 2011 itself relying upon the fact that they have passed departmental examination. Therefore, the authorities were constrained to cancel the declaration of probation on 23.12.2012 and they have declared it from the date of passing of Bhavanisagar training. In such view of the matter, this Court does find any error in the order passed by the authorities.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the inter se seniority between the direct recruitees and the promotee assistants was settled by this Court in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018. In such circumstances, it cannot be resurrected by another litigation. I have gone through the order passed in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018. That was filed for fixation of inter se seniority between the direct recruitee assistants and the promotee assistants. In that case, the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that the temporary promotion granted in favour of the promotees has been regularized by the Government which has not been challenged by the direct recruitees.

19. Based upon the said temporary promotion, the seniority of the promotees was upheld. However, in the present case, a question has been raised whether the present four writ petitioners would be entitled for temporary promotion as Assistant in the year 2012 at all.

20. According to the official respondents, the petitioners were not qualified on the crucial date namely 15.03.2012. Either they have not cleared the departmental test or Bhavanisagar training on the said date. Therefore, they were not fully qualified to be included in the panel for the year 2012. However, erroneously their names were included in the panel for the year 2012 and got promoted in December 2012. Based upon the said seniority, in the cadre of Assistant, the petitioners' names were included in 2017 panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer also.

21. In WA(MD).No.885 of 2018, the temporary promotion granted to the writ petitioner was not in dispute. The present dispute is about the rights of the writ petitioners to get promoted as Assistants. When they are not qualified for promotion, they cannot blame the direct recruitees for lodging a complaint as against them. It does not relate to inter se seniority. Probably the revision of seniority may be a consequential event. Therefore, the order in the writ appeal in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018 cannot come to the rescue of the writ petitioners.

22. As far as the writ petitioners Sankaran and Kathiravan are concerned, the first respondent had dismissed their appeal confirming that they were not qualified to be included to the panel for the post of Assistant for the year 2012. Consequently, the order of revision of seniority and reversion from the post of Deputy Block Development Officer to the post of Assistant has been passed by the third respondent. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in this order. As far as the writ petitioners Kasali and Subramanian are concerned, the first respondent had dismissed the appeal upholding the facts that they are not qualified to include their names in the panel for the post of Assistant in the year 2012. The consequential orders have been passed by the third respondent on 04.12.2021 altering the date of declaration of probation, revision of seniority and reversion from the post of Deputy Block Development Officer to the post of Assistant.

23. As far as Subramanian is concerned, he has not chosen to challenge the order of reversion dated 28.12.2021 for the reasons best known to him. Without challenging the order of reversion, challenging the other orders would not be of any consequence.

24. The petitioners got their names included in the panel to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2017. Immediately, the direct recruitees have filed WP(MD).No.11678 of 2017. The writ petition was dismissed by the writ Court and confirmed in the writ appeal with regard to inter se seniority. While the writ petition was pending, the direct recruitees have approached the second respondent questioning the inclusion of the names of the writ petitioners in the panel for the year 2012 for temporary promotion to the post of Assistant. In the said representation, orders were passed by the second respondent on 13.12.2018 and the appellate authority namely the first respondent has passed the orders on 21.09.2021. Therefore, right from the date of inclusion of the name of the writ petitioners in the panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2017, the present litigation is going on. In such an event, the order of reversion passed by the authority cannot be attacked on the ground that the same has been passed after nine years.

(D).Conclusion:

25. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the writ petitions. All the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.