Madras High Court
G.Vidhyalakshmi vs The Secretary on 28 April, 2025
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
W.P.No.10692 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.10692 of 2020 & W.M.P.No.12981 of 2020
G.Vidhyalakshmi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department,
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Secretary,
State Human Rights Commission,
No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road, Chennai – 600 028 ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records on the file of the 2nd
Respondent in office proceedings No.88, dated 09.07.2020 and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
For Respondent(s) : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam for R1
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.Manisundargopal for R2
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records on the file of the 2nd Respondent in office proceedings No.88, dated 09.07.2020 and quash the same. 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020
2.The brief facts leading to the present writ petition as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:
(i) The petitioner completed graduation in B.Com and completed Computer Application courses and Post Graduation in MCA Degree along with Typing in Tamil and English in Higher Grade. She has also registered her name in the District Employment Exchange, Chennai.
Whileso, her name was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Chennai to the 2nd respondent herein, who appointed her vide its Order dated 9-8-2010 as Data Entry Operator with a fixed pay scale of Rs.5,200- 20,000 + Grade Pay of Rs.2,400. She was eligible to draw all allowances w.e.f. 12-8-2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularized by the 2ndrespondent after completing one year of probation on 3-11-2011 which is according to Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission Rules 2005. The petitioner has completed her probation from 12-8-2010 to 11-8-2012.
(ii) The petitioner on 29-6-2018, was temporarily promoted and appointed the petitioner as an Assistant by the 2nd respondent and placed her in the pay scale of Rs.5,200-20,200 + Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/- and she was eligible to draw all allowances as per 7th pay commission. Thereafter, on 1-7-2018, her post was regulated to the post of Assistant by the 2nd respondent commission with a revised level of pay scale vide order dated 6-8-2018. Further, the 2nd respondent revised 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020 the grade pay w.e.f. 12-7-2019 for the post of Assistant as Rs.20,600/-- Rs.65,000/-. When that being so, the petitioner was issued with the Impugned order dated 29-6-2018 by which the 2nd respondent has withdrawn the promotion that was given to the petitioner and reverted back to her original post of Data Entry Operator on the ground that the promotion to the post of Assistant was not in accordance with Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Service Rules 2005, as against which the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent failed to see that the Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission Service Rule, 2005 came into effect on 13.06.2005, in which the categories of officers under Division II Specifies Typist, which would be the feeder category for the promotion to the post of Junior Assistant – Cum- Typist, however, the post of typist has been replaced by the post of Data Entry opertor, which automatically becomes the feeder post for the promotion to the post of assistant. The 2 nd respondent is estopped from issuing the impugned order and cannot revert the petitioner as the promoted post as Assistant was regularized with effect from 01.07.2018, thereby pleaded to allow the present petition.
3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter and the counsel reiterated all the contention set out in the counter affidavit and called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard both the leared counsels and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. It is seen that the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Service Rules came in to existence on 13-6-2005, by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 3 of Section 27 r/w Section 41 of Protection of Human Rights Act 1993. The following posts with scale pay were sanctioned post by the Government vide G.O. (Ms) No. 296, Public (Human Rights) Department dated 7-3-2008.
(i) One post each for Court Master, (ii) Assistant Section Officer,
(iii) Typist, (iv) Data Entry Operator and (v) Two posts each for Assistant and (vi)Junior Assistant were sanctioned.
Hence, the post of Data Entry Operator is a sanctioned post to which the petitioner was rightly appointed as early as 9-8-2010.
7. The present issue arose in the year 2018 when the petitioner was promoted as Assistant as early as 29-6-2018 and were placed in the scale of pay of Rs.5200-20,200+ GP 2800. Thereafter, it is not 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020 disputed that the 2nd respondent revised the petitioner’s grade pay on 12-7-2019 as Rs.20,600-65,500. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 9-7-2020 came to be issued after two years of promotion to the post of Assistant reverting the petitioner to the original post as DEO, only on the ground that DEO is not a feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant.
8. According to the respondents, the feeder post for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant is Junior Assistant and Typist. The petitioner counsel drew the attention of this Court to G.O.(Ms) 74, dated 20-3-2007, wherein which the Government has accorded the proposal of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and directed the post of DEO be prescribed as one of the feeder categories for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer, besides the other categories in the commission. However, they shall be allowed to exercise an option as to the line in which they wish to continue.
9. On a careful perusal of the above G.O., it is seen that the G.O. is purported to be issued for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission wherein at that point of time only 6 Data Entry Operators were working in the office and they had put in 7 years of service and the only promotional avenue for them is the single post of input and output 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020 supervisor. Therefore, the Commission had stated before this Court that the post of Computer Operator is one of the feeders for the promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer. Besides the category of Assistant and Typist. Hence, the commission has suggested that the holders of the post of Data Entry Operator may be considered for promotion to Assistant Section Officer along with Typist, as the nature of work as Data Entry Operator is similar to the post of Typist. Accepting to the said suggestion, the Government has permitted and directed that the post of Data Entry Operator be prescribed as one of the feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer.
10. It is also seen that as per G.O. (Ms) No. 296, Public (Human Right) Department, dated 7-3-2008, the feeder category for Assistant is prescribed as Junior Assistant and Typist and thereafter, stands the DEO. In fact, the pay scale for Junior Assistant and Typist is fixed as 3,200-85-4,900 and for DEO, the pay scale fixed is Rs.4,000-100-6,000. This clearly shows that DEO draws better pay than the post of Junior Assistant and Typist. However, DEO is not kept as a feeder post for scaling up in to the promotion as Assistant.
11. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is relevant to extract Rule 33 of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020 Commission Service Rule 2005, which is hereunder:
“The condition of service of the members of the service, the commission for which no expressed provision or insufficient provision has been made in these rules, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to the officers or officials holding corresponding posts or pay levels belonging to the Government shall regulate the conditions of service of such officers and employees of the commission subject to the issue of specific orders to this effect by the Government”
12. On perusing the above rule, it is categorically clear that as far as the Data Entry Operator who carries higher pay than that of Junior Assistant and Typist, which post is considered to be the feeder category to the promotion post of Assistant. However, there are no specific promotional avenues made to the post of DEO. Though they carry higher pay than that of Junior Assistant and Typist. This position will lead to great anamoly, as a Typist or Junior Assistant appointed to a Data Entry Operator will scale upon promotion and the Data Entry Operator will be subservient to those persons who scale upon into the promotion though they are appointed later to the Data Entry Operator.
13.Taking into consideration of these aspects, the Government issued G.O. No. 74, dated 20-7-2007 for Tamil Nadu Public Service 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020 Commission, wherein which the Government accepted the suggestion made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissioner to equate or consider, Data Entry Operator as a feeder post for further promotion avenue to the post of Assistant Section Officer. Applying Rule 33 of Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission Service Rule 2005, when the promotion avenues are silent and the commission has not prescribed any service regulation for creating promotional avenues to the DEO, corresponding regulations made by the government in favour of the Government department shall apply, where no expressed provision or insufficient provision has been made in the rules. Conjoint reading of Rule 33 of Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission Service Rule 2005 and GO. (Ms) No. 74, Personnnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 20-3-2007, it is seen that the promotion granted to the petitioner as Assistant as early as 29-6-2008 cannot be faulted. The petitioner appointed by the Commission in the sanctioned post as Data Entry Operator is one among the common categories like Junior Assistant and Typist available in the government service. The post of Data Entry Operator and the post of Typist are common categories and the petitioner was promoted as Assistant only because the post of Data Entry Operator was considered for promoting along with the post of Typist as prescribed in GO (Ms) No. 74, dated 20-3-2007. 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020 In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly quashed and the Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
28.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
ssd
To
1. The Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Secretary, State Human Rights Commission, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai – 600 028 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm ) W.P.No.10692 of 2020 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J ssd W.P.No.10692 of 2020 28.04.2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 08:42:35 pm )