Madras High Court
P.Justice Saroja vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar University on 16 October, 2020
Bench: A.P.Sahi, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
P.Justice Saroja : Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
represented by the Registrar,
Abisekhapatti,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Vice Chancellor,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Abisekhapatti,
Tirunelveli District.
3.P.Backia Lakshmi
4.S.Ahila
5.P.Chellathai
6.M.Chidambaram
7.A.P.Jayalatha
8.B.Vallinayaki
9.S.Nirmala
10.G.Sujitha
11.S.Kala Devil
12.M.Chitra Devi
13.R.Sundari
1/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011
14.R.Anandakkumari : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.
9035 of 2005 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For R4 : Mr.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s. Issac Chambers
For R8 : Mr.M.Saravanan
for Mr.R.Subramanian
For RR2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 & 10 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Chief Justice) The appellant has come up claiming her seniority in the services of the respondent Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, contending that the learned Single Judge has erroneously considered the date of regularization that is, 01.04.1993 as to be the date from which the services of the appellant are to be counted for the purpose of seniority. The contention raised is that the said conclusion drawn overlooks several facts that were pleaded and even though noted by the learned Single Judge have not been appreciated in correct perspective. It is therefore prayed that the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2011 be set aside.
2/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011
2. The background in which the writ petition came to be filed appears to be that the appellant along with 17 others came to be engaged on a purely temporary and consolidated pay as Tabulators. However, the University, which was still in its stage of inception was in the process of defining its cadres and creation of posts, which appears to have commenced with an exercise to that effect. However, the fact remains that the appellant along with others came to be appointed as temporary women Tabulators and a letter of appointment was issued on 01.05.1992, which recites that the appointment is purely temporary on consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month and the services are liable to be terminated at any point of time without any prior notice.
3.It appears that their services were discontinued and writ petition was filed at the Principal Seat at Madras seeking quashing of the resolution of the Syndicate to terminate such services. The Principal Seat of this Court vide judgment dated 29.04.1994 quashed the order of termination and thereafter, the Syndicate of the University proceeded to consider accommodating these Tabulators against posts in order to provide certainity to their employment. The resolution to that effect came to be passed on 13.05.1994, following which a Memo dated 16.05.1994 was issued appointing the appellant and six others. The said memo dated 16.05.1994 is extracted hereunder:- 3/22
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 “Memo No.ESTT-1/ADM/94 dated 16.05.19994 Sub:Estt-appointment of Junior Assistants -Pay fixation-Orders issued reg Ref:Syndicate Resolution dated 13.05.199. In accordance with the resolution of the Syndicate cited under reference the following individuals are by direction uninfirmed that they are appointed temporarily at Junior Assistant with notional effect from 01.04.1993 and monetary effect from 01.05.1994 in the scale of pay of Rs. 975-25-1150-30-1660.
Their pay is fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.975-25-11500-30-1660 with effect from 01.04.1993 (Notional Effect) and 01.05.1994 (Monetary Effect) as follows:-
Sl.no Name Pay fixed in the scale of Rs.
975-25-1150-30-1660
1. Mrs.A.P.Jeyalatha Rs.1025/- w.e.f. 01.04.1993
(Notional Effect) Rs.1050/- w.e.f. 01.04.1994 (Next Increment Notional) Rs.1050/- w.e.f. 01.05.1994 (Monetary Effect)
2. Miss.P.Justice Saroja -do-
3. Miss.S.Nirmala -do-
4. Miss.G.Sujitha -do-
5. Miss.R.Sundari -do-
6. Miss.B.Vallinayaki -do-
7. Miss.S.Kaladevi -do-
They will be on probation for a period of two years with effect from 01.04.1993.
The fixation of pay in respect of the above individuals is subject to audit an any excess in fixation will be summarily to this effect.”
4.A perusal of the same would indicate that this was a regular appointment on temporary basis against the post of Junior Assistant with 4/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 notional effect from 01.04.1993, but with monetary effect from 01.05.1994 in a particular pay scale. The order further recites that the appointees will be on probation for a period of two years with effect from 01.04.1993.
5. It appears that after such appointment, the issue of fixation of seniority of 14 of these Junior Assistants was taken up at Agenda Item No.32 of the resolution of the Syndicate of the University on 05.12.1996 and it was resolved as follows:-
Syndicate on 05.12.1996 December 05.1996 Minutes of the Meeting Item No.32 Establishment Section (Admin) Considered fixing seniority in respect of 14 Jr..Assistants whose services were regularised with effect from 01.04.1993 S.No. Name and Designation Date of Birth
1. Selvi P.Backialakshmi J.Asst. 10.01.1958
2. Tmt.S.Ahila -do- 09.05.1958
3. Tmt.P.Chellathai -do- 09.05.1960
4. Selvi Felida Sheela James -do- 01.03.1963
5. Thiru M.Chidambaram -do- 15.06.1963
6. Tmt.B.Vallinayagi -do- 14.07.1963
7. Selvi S.Nirmala -do- 25.05.1965
8. Tmt.G.Sujitha -do- 06.06.1966
9. Selvi S.Kaladevi -do- 19.02.1967
10. Selvi M.Chitradevi -do- 31.03.1967
11. Tmt.R.Sundari -do- 10.05.1967
12. Selvi P.Justice Saroja -do- 25.05.1967
13. Tmt.R.Ananda Kumari -do- 30.05.1967 5/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 Resolved to approve the seniority of 14 Junior Assistants whose services were regularised with effect from 01.04.1993 base on their date of birth as per the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules 35 (aa).”
6. A perusal of the said fixation of seniority would indicate that the services of the appellant and the other Junior Assistants are treated as having been regularized with effect from 01.04.1993. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which admittedly are applicable for fixation of seniority was applied and according to Rule 35(aa), treating their dates of substantive appointment as 01.04.1993, their seniority was fixed according to their respective dates of birth. We may at this stage record that it is the consistent stand of the University that this resolution of the Syndicate dated 05.12.1996 was never challenged.
7. It appears that the appellant and some of these appointees represented before the University claiming that their seniority should be refixed keeping in view of the dates of their initial appointment as Tabulators. The University in its wisdom, appointed the retired IAS Officer, Mr.K.Lakshmikanthan Bharathi as a One Man Commission to give report on such claims, which were submitted on 10.10.1998. This report recorded the 6/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 various dates of appointment as Tabulators prior to the regular appointment of the appellant and others as Junior Assistants and then recorded that since the original appointment as Tabulators which had been discontinued came to be quashed by this Court, the original appointment should be held to be legal. The One Man Commission also noted that as per rules, all persons normally be regularized from the date on which they joined the post and should get monetary benefits from that date. The report then observed that since the appellant and others who are fully qualified on the date of their appointment, there was no occasion to regularise them from a later date or grant monetary benefits from a further later date. The One Man Commission therefore appears to have presumed that the regularisation/regular appointment that was made by the University on the post of Junior Assistant did not warrant its issuance from a later date and consequently on a permutation and combination of the respective dates of appointment as Tabulators, made a recommendation for revision of seniority. The said proposal of the One Man Commission was placed before the Review Committee consisting of three members that endorsed the modification of the inter se seniority of the Tabulators as suggested by the One Man Commission. This report of the Three Members Committee indicated that the seniority should be with reference from the date of joining duty, but in Item No.4, it was observed that the appellant herein had moved the 7/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 representations after a lapse of more than five years, whereas, any such grievance had to be registered with the University within 30 days from the date of noticing of such an event. Accordingly, it was resolved to refer the matter to the Establishment Committee at Agenda Item No.5, which is extracted hereunder:-
“5.To review the recommendation of the One Man Commission a review Committee was constituted by the Syndicate dated 15.05.2000 with the following members:-
1.Dr.Devaraj -Convenor
2.Thiru Parthasarathy -Secretary to Government Law Dept Member
3.Prof.James Williams -Member
6.The Recommendation of the review committee on the petition given by Tmt.P.Justice Saroja and others was that, (Page No.10).
(I) The Review Committee, fully endorses the recommendation of the One Man Commission about the need for modification of the iner-seniority list. Accordingly, the 14 Tabulators are shown in the order of their revised seniority with reference to the date of joining duty and the merit list of those who joined duty on the same date.
7.The recommendation of the review committee was placed before the Syndicate Meeting held on 17.02.2001 and the Syndicate has deferred the recommendation given by the review 8/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 committee on the petition of Tmt.PJustice Saroja and others.
8.The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act Section 12(4)(b) reads that, (Page No.12) “When the action taken by the Vice Chancellor under this sub-section affects any person in the service of the University, such, person shall be entitled to prefer an appeal to the Syndicate within thirty days from the date on which he has notice of such action. The vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the order passed by the Syndicate on such appeal.”
9.She has represented to refix the seniority after 20 months of the decision taken by the Syndicate.
10.The Vice-Chancellor has ordered on 11.12.2003 that a revision of seniority at this stage on an appeal which in belated will give raise to unnecessary legal problems and similar claims by others also.
11.As such Tmt.P.Justice Saroja, Assistant was informed that her appeal is not maintainable as it is belated vide Sec.12(4)(b) of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act, 1990.
12.Tmt.S.Kaladevi, Assistant and Tmt.B.Vallinayagi, Assistant in their petition dated 19.05.2004 requested to maintain the Existing seniority as approved in the Syndicate dated 05.12.196.
Resolved that the matter be referred to Establishment Committee with full details.”
8. The Establishment Committee in response thereto in its resolution dated 24.06.2004 at Item No.4, resolved to reject the representation of the 9/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 appellant, which is extracted hereunder:-
“Item No.4.This relates to refixing seniority of Tmt.P.Justice Saroja, Assistant in the seniority list of 13 Assistants already fixed by the Syndicate at the meeting held on 05.12.1996. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act (Section 12(4)(b) specifies that grievance in respect of service matters should be appealed to the Syndicate within 30 days from the date on which the person has notice of such an event. This representation of Tmt.P.Justice Saroja has been received after a lapse of more than 5 years. The date of the representation is 17.09.2002, while the individual is ware of this event on 26.03.1997, represented by communication in No.Estt/2/Admn/97, dated 25.03.1997 which was an order promoting 14 employees of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University from the rank of Junior Assistant to the rank of Assistant, in which the name of the petitioner stands at Serial No.13, which has been acknowledged by her on 26.03.1997. It was therefore, resolved that it will not be possible to reopen the issue at this time of the day, as the matter is highly belated and any exercise in this direction will create complications and there is also no reasonable prospect in getting the required details regarding service matters of all concerned.”
9. The Registrar thereafter issued a memorandum dated 21.09.2004, issuing the seniority list with an indication that no further representation shall be entertained, which is extracted hereunder:-
10/22
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 “Memo No.MSU/Estt/Admn/2004 dated 21.09.2004 Sub: Estt-Refixation of Seniority-Assistant-reg Ref:1.Syndicate Resloution dated 05.12.1996
2.Syndicate Resolution dated 05.06.2004
3.Syndicate Resolution dated 16.08.2004 In accordance with the resolution of the Syndicate cited under reference (3) the seniority of the following Assistant stands as already fixed by the Syndicate resolution dated 05.12.1996.
Hereafter representation to refix the seniority will not be entertained.
S.No. Name and Designation Date of Birth
1. Selvi P.Backialakshmi J.Asst. 10.01.1958
2. Tmt.S.Ahila -do- 09.05.1958
3. Tmt.P.Chellathai -do- 09.05.1960
4. Thiru M.Chidambaram -do- 15.06.1963
5. A.P.Jeyalatha -do- 14.07.1963
6. Tmt.B.Vallinayagi -do- 16.05.1963
7. Selvi S.Nirmala -do- 25.05.1965
8. Tmt.G.Sujitha -do- 06.06.1966
9. Selvi S.Kaladevi -do- 19.02.1967
10. Selvi M.Chitradevi -do- 31.03.1967
11. Tmt.R.Sundari -do- 10.05.1967
12. Selvi P.Justice Saroja -do- 25.05.1967
13. Tmt.R.Ananda Kumari -do- 30.05.1967”
11/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011
10. The appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.9035 of 2005 and then subsequently W.P.(MD)No.9737 of 2005 that were clubbed together and came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.07.2011.
11. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention on laches that was raised as an objection on behalf of the respondents in Paragraph Nos.26 to 28 and also dismissed the plea of non joinder of necessary party. The said paragraphs of the impugned order are extracted hereunder:-
“26. The objection has also been raised by the Respondent that the Writ Petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The contention is that the seniority was fixed in the year 1996, which was challenged in 2005 that too, without impleading the affected persons as parties, who were only impleaded in the year 2011.
27. This contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent deserves to be rejected for the reason that the Petitioner had filed a representation immediately on fixation of seniority, and the University took time to decide. The order was passed only on 16.08.2004. The writ petition was thereafter immediately filed. The Writ Petition does not suffer from delay and laches.
28 . As regards the objection of non-joinder of necessary parties is concerned, that defect has also stands cured, as the Petitioner with the permission of this Court impleaded the affected person as parties.
Therefore at this stage, the Petitioner cannot be non-suited on this ground.” 12/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011
12. On the issue of seniority, the learned Single Judge in Paragraph Nos.31 to 33 recorded as under:-
31. In any case, it is the admitted case of the parties, that the Petitioner as well as private Respondent were brought in the cadre only on 01.04.1993 when their service were regularized.
32. The date of appointment of the Petitioner as well as of private Respondent therefore is the same.
33. The seniority therefore is to be fixed by treating older in age is senior than the person who is younger as per rules. This what has been done in this case.
13. The appellant had relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S.Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in W.P.(MD)No.958 of 2011 dated 05.11.2009, which was also considered by ruling as under:-
“35.On examination of the above said materials, this Court is of the considered view that the resolution, passed by the first respondent University is in conformity with the Principles to be followed for preparation of seniority list. The University has taken into consideration the marks secured by the candidates, as well as the rule of reservation in preparation of the seniority list. The said procedure adopted by the University is also in consonance with the practice and procedure followed in State and Central Governments.13/22
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 For the above said reasons, I see no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the University. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.”
14. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court contending that firstly, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by not counting the services rendered by the appellant prior to her regularization as part of her services and has overlooked the One Man Commission report and the acceptance in relation to other similarly placed appointees whose cases were considered in the judgment in the case of Saraswathi Ammal (supra). The next contention is that the services rendered earlier even though on temporary basis was against available posts and its continuity has been acknowledged on logical reasons in the One Man Committee report, the reasons whereof are squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. In effect, the argument is that the challenge raised to the action of the respondents is legally sustainable and that the seniority of the appellant accordingly, deserves to be revised and restored.
15. In opposition, Mr.Mohammed Athiff, learned counsel for the University submitted that the substantive appointment in the present case is clearly on the strength of the order dated 16.05.1994 which was the order appointing the appellant on probation and therefore, the date of initial 14/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 appointment or otherwise cannot be taken into account and period of probation as fixed with effect from 01.04.1993, which is the date from which regular appointment has been extended to the appellant would be the only date for consideration. He submits that this is in tune with Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and the contention on behalf of the appellant that the date of joining according to the initial appointment should be counted as incorrect. The date of joining has absolutely no application on the facts of the present case, where all the candidates, who are extended with the benefit of regularization with effect from 01.04.1993 and therefore, whoever is senior in age on the date from which the probation period began, would be entitled to seniority accordingly.
16. It is submitted that the judgment which has been relied on in the case of Saraswathi Ammal (supra) has absolutely no application, as on the facts of the present case where the appointment is clearly governed by the document dated 16.05.1994, whereas the Judgment of the learned Single Judge proceeds only on the perspective of the One Man Commission Enquiry Report without taking into consideration the real impact of the Rules that are applicable, namely Rule 35(aa) of the Rules. It is therefore, submitted that neither the judgment nor the facts thereof are applicable to the present controversy. 15/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011
17. Learned counsel for the University also indicated that the One Man Commission report in the case of the appellant was not accepted and the Establishment Section after taking into consideration the correct position of law rightly rejected the representation of the appellant in its deliberations dated 24.06.2004, which is in accordance with the Rules and does not suffer from any infirmity much less a legal infirmity. He further submits that the order fixing seniority dated 05.12.1996 having not been challenged, then any request made after five years or thereafter, for revisiting the seniority would amount to interfering with the long-standing seniority already fixed as per the Rules, which ought not to be disturbed.
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions raised, we find that the date of joining even as a daily wager or a tabulator is the same i.e., 31.05.1991. However, the said date cannot be the date of any substantive appointment inasmuch as the appointment of the appellant was admittedly not on substantive basis, but, it become substantive on account of regularisation. This is evident from the previous round of litigation, which had been filed and has been referred to the above to which the appellant was a party as petitioner No.9 in W.P.No.8664 of 1992. The 16/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 interim order passed on 04.11.1992 in the said writ petition is extracted herein under:-
"These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No 8664/92 on the file of the High Court and the order of this Court dated 2.7.92 and made in W.M.P.No. 12523 of 1992 and the counter affidavit filed therein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.Somayajulu, for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates for the petitioners in C.M.P.No. 12523 of 1992 and for the respondents in W.M.P.No. 19645 of 1992 and of Mr.N.R.Chandran for Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan Advocate for the respondent in W.M.P.No. 12523 of 1992 and for the petitioner in W.M.P.No. 19645 of 1992 the court made the following order:
The writ petition relates to contain Tabulators who were recruited in a temporary capacity and who are aggrieved by a resolution of the syndicate of the respondent University dated resolution of the syndicate of the respondent University dated 11.5.1992 in and by which a decision was taken to select Tabulators through Employment Exchange and to dispense with the services of the temporary Tabulators, after the now recruits joined the University. There is also a prayer in the writ petition to regularize the services on the petitioners. There was an earlier writ petition with regard to the temporary Tabulators and this court had rendered a judgment on 24.3.1992 in W.P.Nos.3666 and 3667 of 1992. Govindasamy. J.held that a mandamus as prayed for could not be granted However, the Learned Judge observed that if any vacancy arises and if the petitioners in the said writ petitions were qualified and do not suffer 17/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 any disqualification, the University may consider their candidature for the post. It is the case of the petitioners that their appointment was made only after getting non availability certificate from the respective Employment Exchanges. The present writ petition was admitted on 2.7.92 and an interim stay of the said resolution had been granted on the very same day.
2. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel for the respondent argues that the earlier judgment of this court does not give any right in favour of the petitioners for regularization He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Develop.Horticulture Employees Union Vs. Delhi Admn. (1991(4) S.C.C.99) wherein the apex court has deprecated the practice of ignoring the Employment Exchange and regularizing the temporary candidates. In any event, Mr.Chandran argues that the stay can be restricted to the termination of the petitioners, leaving it open to the University to call for names from the Employment Exchange as per the budget provision for 1992-93-Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned counsel for petitioners, however, objects to the said suggestion of Mr.N.R.Chandran on the ground that their appointment itself was after getting the non-availability certificate and this Court has held in the School committee, Tilak Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Kallidaikurichi Vs The District Educational Officer Tirunelveli South (1991 TNLJ 1) that it is not necessary to go through the Employment Exchange for recruitment of such candidates.
3. Without going into the details of the matter and without adjudicating upon the rights of the petitioners to be regularized with reference to the decisions cited. I am of the opinion that no 18/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 prejudice wiil be caused if the University is permitted to call for names from the Employment Exchange, so long as the petitioner's services are not dispensed with The apprehension that the fresh candidates will be called for onty to fill up the posts held by the petitioners need not cause any fear in the minds of the petitioners, because, if ultimately the petitioners succeed in establishing their right to be regularised their jobs are secure. If, on the other hand, the petitioners do not succeed in getting their regularisation, it is always open to the respondent University to fill up the vacancies with fresh candidates. In this view of the matter. I direct that the interim stay already granted shall be restricted only to that part of the resolution which calls for dispensation of the nerves of the temporary Tabulators. In respect of other portion of the resolution seeking to select Tabulators through Employment Exchange the stay is vacated. It is made clear that till the disposal of the writ petition the services of the petitioners shall be dispensed with."
19. A perusal of the said interim order would indicate that the services of the petitioner therein were protected till the disposal of the writ petition, but, observations also indicate that the appointment was of temporary tabulators and the issue of regularisation was left open to be considered later on. This aspect of the matter stands confirmed by the final judgment, that was delivered on 29.04.1994, which is extracted herein under:-
"By consent the writ petition is taken up for hearing, Petitioners herein are employed temporarily by the respondent-19/22
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 University and their services are sought to be terminated on the ground that their recruitment was not through the Employment Exchange and that they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
2. It is not disputed that the University has addressed the Employment Exchange to furnish names of suitable persons for the post of Tabulators and the Employment Exchange replied that the Exchange was unable to suggest suitable candidates. The employer could not recruit suitable persons through the Employment Exchange. In those circumstances, the recruitment made without reference to the Employment Exchange cannot be said to be illegal.
3. The impugned resolution to terminate the petitioners is, therefore, quashed. As regards regularization, it is matter to be dealt with by the respondent-University, The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs."
20. The last paragraph of the said judgment categorically recites that as regards regularisation, it is a matter to be dealt with by the respondent University.
21. As is available on record, the respondent University on 19.05.1994, after the said judgment has issued the order granting regular status with effect from 01.04.1993. As is also noted above, the same is on probation 20/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 for a period of two years with effect from 01.04.1993. This clearly partakes the nature of substantive appointment and the word 'appointment' used in Rule 35(1)(a) and (aa) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, contemplates only such nature of appointment and not fortuitous appointment prior to the regular appointment. Therefore, the date of substantive appointment would be 01.04.1993 and consequently, the seniority accordingly is to be counted insofar as the petitioner is concerned. This date was already fixed in 1996 and therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge on that account does not suffer any infirmity. Writ Appeal fails and hereby dismissed. No costs.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.) 16.10.2020 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta/bala/sj/pkn Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. 21/22 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
ta/bala/sj/pkn ORDER MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.958 of 2011 16.10.2020 22/22 http://www.judis.nic.in