Supreme Court clarifies seniority for Deputy Tahsildar posts: A. Rajagopalan vs. The District Collector (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 12, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 251
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can the implementation of a rule be retrospective, especially when it affects settled promotions? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning seniority for promotions to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in Tamil Nadu. This case revolves around the interpretation of amended service rules and their impact on direct recruits and promotee assistants within the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute arose from the implementation of amendments to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS Rules), specifically Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III, item (ii). These amendments, introduced through G.O. No. 884 dated 12.08.1992 and G.O. No. 133 dated 07.02.1995, aimed to provide preferential treatment to direct recruit assistants in promotions to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The amendments were made effective from 04.12.1978.

The post of Assistant in the Revenue Department was filled through two channels: direct recruitment by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and promotion from Junior Assistants. Direct recruits, typically graduates, sought preferential treatment over promotees, who were often non-graduates. The amended rules sought to address this by prioritizing direct recruits for promotion to Deputy Tahsildar after five years of service and successful completion of training.

The Promotee Assistants challenged the amendments, leading to a series of legal battles. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal initially set aside the amendments, but this decision was overturned by the High Court of Madras. The matter then reached the Supreme Court in the case of *M. Rathinaswami and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009) 5 SCC 625*. The Supreme Court upheld the amendments, but with a crucial modification: it ruled that promotee assistants who were also graduates should be treated on par with direct recruits for promotion purposes. This decision was based on the principle that once a promotee acquires a graduate degree, there is no rational basis for discrimination.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Rathinaswami*, the State Government issued directions to implement the ruling. However, different District Collectors interpreted the judgment differently, leading to revisions of seniority lists and promotions. This resulted in further litigation, with both direct recruits and promotee non-graduate assistants challenging the revised lists.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (TNRSS Rules), framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These rules regulate the recruitment and promotion of various posts within the Revenue Department of Tamil Nadu.

The key legal provisions and rules involved are:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• Rule 5(g) of the TNRSS Rules: This rule, as amended, deals with the eligibility and seniority for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar.
• Annexure-III, item (ii) of the TNRSS Rules: This annexure specifies the criteria for inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars, including preferential treatment for direct recruits.

The original TNRSS Rules had a cyclical order for seniority, as shown in Annexure IX:

First two vacancies :Persons appointed by promotion
Third vacancy :Persons appointed by direct recruitment
Fourth and fifth vacancies:Persons appointed by promotion
Sixth vacancy :Persons appointed by direct recruitment

The amendments introduced by G.O. No. 133 dated 07.02.1995 altered this order by providing that:

“provided also that an Assistant appointed by direct recruitment in the office of the erstwhile Board of Revenue, who has completed a total service of five years, passed all the tests prescribed and undergone training as Firka Revenue Inspector for a period of two years successfully shall be eligible for inclusion of his name in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars for Madras City, above his seniors appointed other than by direct recruitment or for re-fixation of his seniority over such seniority, if his name has already been included in the list of Deputy Tahsildars. The consideration of his claim shall be against the first vacancy that follows the carried over vacancies.

“Provided also that an Assistant appointed by direct recruitment in the District Revenue Unit, who has completed a total period of five years, passed all the tests prescribed and undergone training as Firka Renevue Inspector for a period of two years successfully, shall be eligible for inclusion of his name in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars in the District above his seniors appointed other than by direct recruitment or for re-fixation of his seniority over such seniors, if his name has already been included in the list of Deputy Tahsildars. The consideration of his claim shall be against the first vacancy that follows the carried over vacancies”.

The Supreme Court in *M. Rathinaswami* read down the rule to mean that the preference for direct recruits would not apply to promotee assistants who were graduates.

Arguments

The appellants, primarily direct recruit assistants, argued that the High Court’s judgment was incorrect in treating all three categories—direct recruits, graduate promotees, and non-graduate promotees—as one group. They contended that the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Rathinaswami* only mandated that graduate promotees be treated on par with direct recruits, while non-graduate promotees should remain subordinate to direct recruits in seniority.

The State of Tamil Nadu initially supported the High Court’s view of treating all three categories as one group, but later changed its stance, agreeing that the implementation of the High Court’s order would lead to the reversion of 313 direct recruits. The State argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Rathinaswami* should be implemented prospectively from 08.04.2009 and that the promotions of direct recruits made between 1995 and 2009 should not be disturbed.

The promotee graduate assistants argued that they should be treated on par with direct recruits, as per the *Rathinaswami* judgment. They contended that there should be no discrimination between them and direct recruits.

The promotee non-graduate assistants argued for a common seniority list with graduate promotees and direct recruits, relying on the State’s letter dated 30.12.2011, which proposed dispensing with graduation as a minimum qualification for Deputy Tahsildar.

The following table shows the sub-submissions categorized by main submissions of all sides pertaining to the issue:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. The primary issue was the implementation of the amended Rule 5(g) of the TNRSS Rules and Annexure-III, item (ii), in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in *M. Rathinaswami*. Specifically, how should the seniority of direct recruits, graduate promotees, and non-graduate promotees be determined for promotions to the post of Deputy Tahsildar?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and clarified the implementation of the amended rules and the *Rathinaswami* judgment.

The following table shows how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the principles of fairness and equality while respecting the settled positions of those who had been promoted under the amended rules. The court emphasized that the *Rathinaswami* judgment should be implemented in a manner that does not cause undue hardship or disruption.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court’s decision is as follows:

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that all three categories should be treated as one group, but rejected it because it would be contrary to the *Rathinaswami* judgment and would unsettle the settled positions of direct recruits.

The Court’s decision can be summarized as follows:

• Promotions of direct recruit assistants between 07.02.1995 and 08.04.2009 shall not be disturbed.
• Graduate promotee assistants are to be treated on par with direct recruit assistants prospectively from 08.04.2009.
• Promotions made after 08.04.2009 to be revised to conform to the *Rathinaswami* judgment.
• Amended rule giving preference to direct recruits over non-graduate promotees is valid.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“the implementation of the order with effect from 04.12.1978 would create unprecedented confusion and upset the settled position of Direct recruit Assistants who had been promoted from 1995 till 2009 by virtue of the amended Rule conferring preferential treatment on the Direct recruit Assistants.”

“By virtue of the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009, referred above, Promotee graduate Assistants are placed on par with Direct recruit Assistants. So far as Promotee non-graduate Assistants are concerned, the amended rule holds the field, which gives preferential treatment to Direct recruit Assistants, over Promotee non-graduate Assistants;”

“While implementing the above directions, if the seniority and promotion, of the persons who are already retired or dead, is affected in any manner, payments made on account of such seniority and promotion earlier granted to them during the interregnum period, i.e., from 08.04.2009 till this date shall not be recovered.”

Key Takeaways

The practical implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment are:

• Promotions of direct recruit assistants made between 07.02.1995 and 08.04.2009 will not be disturbed.
• Graduate promotee assistants will be treated on par with direct recruit assistants only prospectively from 08.04.2009.
• Any promotions made after 08.04.2009 that do not conform to the *Rathinaswami* judgment will be revised.
• Non-graduate promotee assistants will continue to be governed by the amended rule, which gives preference to direct recruits.
• Payments made to those who have retired or died will not be recovered even if their seniority or promotion is affected by the implementation of this judgment.

The judgment clarifies the implementation of service rules and ensures that settled positions are not unduly disturbed. It also upholds the principle of equality by treating graduate promotees on par with direct recruits while maintaining the preference for direct recruits over non-graduate promotees.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

1. Promotions of Direct recruit Assistants effected between 07.02.1995 and 08.04.2009 and their seniority in their respective positions as on date, shall not be disturbed;
2. The benefit extended to the graduate promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants is to be given effect to prospectively from the date of judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in the case of *M. Rathinaswami v. State of T.N.* reported in (2009) 5 SCC 625;
3. After 08.04.2009, the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar from its feeder category, i.e., Direct recruit Assistants and Promotee graduate Assistants, shall be strictly in accordance with the judgment of this Court referred above, i.e., treating Promotee graduate Assistants on par with Direct recruit Assistants. Such promotion shall be given effect to, without reference to any interim order(s) passed by the High Court;
4. If any panels are prepared, and promotions are given, after 08.04.2009 for promoting the Assistants to the post of Deputy Tahsildars in Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service contrary to the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009, such panels and promotions have to be revised so as to bring in conformity with the judgment of this Court referred above;
5. By virtue of the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009, referred above, Promotee graduate Assistants are placed on par with Direct recruit Assistants. So far as Promotee non-graduate Assistants are concerned, the amended rule holds the field, which gives preferential treatment to Direct recruit Assistants, over Promotee non-graduate Assistants;
6. Promotee non-graduate Assistants, who are impleaded as party respondents in these appeals, are not entitled to any directions in their favour, as much as, all these appeals are preferred by Direct recruit Assistants;
7. While implementing the above directions, if the seniority and promotion, of the persons who are already retired or dead, is affected in any manner, payments made on account of such seniority and promotion earlier granted to them during the interregnum period, i.e., from 08.04.2009 till this date shall not be recovered.
8. So far as Promotee non-graduate Assistants are concerned, it is open for them to pursue with the Government for appropriate amendment to the Rules, in which event we keep it open to Government to consider such request on its own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the benefit of parity between direct recruits and promotee graduate assistants, as established in *M. Rathinaswami v. State of T.N.*, is to be applied prospectively from the date of that judgment (08.04.2009). Promotions made before this date are to be protected. The amended rule giving preference to direct recruits over non-graduate promotees remains valid. This judgment clarifies the implementation of the *Rathinaswami* ruling and ensures that settled positions are not unduly disturbed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *A. Rajagopalan vs. The District Collector* clarifies the implementation of amended service rules and the *Rathinaswami* judgment regarding seniority for promotions to Deputy Tahsildar posts in Tamil Nadu. The court ruled that the benefit of parity between direct recruits and graduate promotees is to be applied prospectively from 08.04.2009. The promotions of direct recruits made before this date are protected. The amended rule giving preference to direct recruits over non-graduate promotees remains valid. This judgment ensures fairness and stability in the service while upholding the principles of equality established in *Rathinaswami*.