Summary
The Supreme Court clarified that parity between graduate promotee Assistants and direct recruits for promotion as Deputy Tahsildars operated prospectively from Rathinaswami on 8 April 2009. Earlier direct-recruit promotions were protected. A proposal to remove the degree requirement had not amended the statutory rules and could not justify grouping non-graduate promotees with graduates.
Issues
- How Rathinaswami should be implemented for seniority and promotions.
- Whether the Government’s unimplemented amendment proposal changed the governing rules.
Provisions considered
- Rule 5(g), Annexure III item (ii), as amended by GO 133 of 1995, Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service RulesThe rules, read down in Rathinaswami for graduate promotees, continued to give direct recruits preference over non-graduate promotees. The unamended proposal letter could not displace them. (¶¶ 3, 11, 14–19)
Held
- The 2011 letter remained a proposal, without amendment of the statutory rules. Treating all three categories alike on its basis contradicted the rule and Rathinaswami. (¶ 14–18)
- Direct-recruit promotions between 7 February 1995 and 8 April 2009, and their existing seniority, were protected. Graduate-promotee parity applied prospectively from 8 April 2009; inconsistent later panels and promotions had to be revised without regard to High Court interim orders. (¶¶ 17, 19(i)–(iv))
- Direct recruits retained rule-based preference over non-graduate promotees, who received no affirmative directions in these appeals but could seek a rule amendment from Government. (¶¶ 19(v)–(vi), 19(viii))
- If implementation affected retired or deceased persons’ seniority or promotions, payments already made for the period from 8 April 2009 to this judgment were not recoverable. (¶ 19(vii))
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside, with prospective implementation, protection of earlier direct-recruit promotions, revision of inconsistent later panels, and specified non-recovery directions.