P. DHARNI Vs. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The controversy raised in the instant appeal revolves around the genuineness of the claim of respondent no. 5, K.V. Karthalingan, for promotion from the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) to the post of Regional Transport Officer. In order to understand the veracity of the aforesaid claim it would be relevant to mention, that the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) is the lower most entry level post. The post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II), is filled up only by way of direct recruitment. Onward promotion therefrom is to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I). It is not a matter of dispute, that Special Rules framed under Section 42 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service exclusively prescribe the conditions of eligibility and the manner/method of promotion from the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I). The aforesaid rules came into force with effect from 19.8.1981. The said rules have been made available to us from the Tamil Nadu Service Manual, Volume III. For purposes of the present controversy, a relevant extract of rules 2, 5 and 9 of the said Special Rules is being reproduced hereunder:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_394_TLPRE0_2013_1.html</FRM>

(3.) It is also relevant to mention, that Special Rules have been framed under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Service for regulating the conditions of eligibility and the manner/method of appointment, inter alia to the post of Regional Transport Officer. Under the above rules, the post of Regional Transport Officer can be filled up only by way of transfer. The above Special Rules came into force with effect from 15.9.1974. The same have been made available to us, from the Tamil Nadu Service Manual, Volume II. Relevant extracts of Rules 2, 3 and 6 of the above Special Rules, which have a bearing on the present controversy, and are being reproduced hereunder:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_394_TLPRE0_2013_2.html</FRM>