- (1.) THIS order shall govern these writ petitions 10 in number. All these writ petitions concentrate in assailing an order dated 28. 11. 2005 passed by the first respondent.
(2.) THE affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are perused. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions: the petitioners herein were originally appointed as Surveyor cum Draftsman on consolidated pay through employment exchange and also by a duly constituted selection committee by the State. They were given three months' training. Large number of candidates completed the training course on the very day. Under the circumstances, a question as to fixation of seniority arose for which purpose, a selection committee consisting of three members was constituted. The committee assessed the candidates and assigned ranking in accordance with the merits, abilities and based on the previous service records. On the said assessment, a rank list was prepared and accordingly, the seniority was fixed to the candidates who have completed training successfully. This was also done in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules 35 (a ). Consequent upon the preparation of the rank list, the respondents appointed the candidates in the regular time scale of pay and accordingly, the service of all the petitioners herein were regularised in the post of Supervisors in the year 1985 though on different dates. Accordingly, a seniority list in the post of Surveyor cum Draftsman was prepared and published by the third respondent in R. O. C. A5. 23623/84 dated 5. 11. 1984. The same was communicated to all concerned. The persons aggrieved over the same, preferred appeals against the seniority list. Finally, the seniority list dated 5. 11. 1984 was finalised and being followed. The petitioners were promoted to the higher post based on the above seniority list. The persons alike the petitioners were already promoted to two, three higher level post. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent issued an order dated 15. 10. 1998 revising the seniority list after lapse of 14 years in the category of Surveyor cum Draftsman which is in the lower category. The revision of seniority was made by the third respondent even without a show cause notice and without providing any reasonable opportunity to defend, and thus, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. What are all stated in the order of revision of seniority is the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 9. 9. 1991 in O. A. No. 199/90. The said O. A. has got no relevance in respect of Vellore District. In fact four applicants from Cuddalore District filed the said O. A. and the Tribunal directed the authority concerned that the temporary appointment in the time scale of pay in accordance with the orders in G. O. Ms. No. 910 C. T. and RE. Dated 10. 8. 1983 might be made strictly in accordance with the seniority among the personnel on consolidated pay. Thus, the order issued in Reference No. 31/19555/89 dated 30. 11. 1989 of the Assistant Director of Survey, Cuddalore, was set aside. The revision of seniority list in the lower category of Surveyor cum Draftsman after a lapse of 14 years by wrongly interpreting the judgment of the Tribunal referred to above, is highly unreasonable and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioners filed O. As. Before the Tribunal. On 26. 12. 1998, the first respondent sent a letter accepting the claim of the petitioners and directing the third respondent to prepare the seniority list only on the basis of the date of selection. Accordingly, the earlier seniority list dated 5. 11. 1984 was restored by an order dated 25. 3. 1999 by the third respondent, and thus, the petitioners' seniority was not disturbed. On the same day, objections were filed against the seniority list by a few. It was dismissed by the third respondent. Thus, it has become final. Now, without any basis, once again the first respondent directed the third respondent to revise the seniority list on the basis of the date of appointment by the impugned proceedings dated 28. 11. 2005. In such circumstances, the petitioners had no option than to approach this Court for necessary orders of quashing the same. Accordingly, these writ petitions have been brought forth.;