The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by persons working as Office Assistants/Record Clerks in various courts in Erode District of the State of Tamil Nadu claiming promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff.
The writ petitions filed by 22 persons, of whom 3 are working as Record Clerks and the rest working as Office Assistants in various courts in Erode District were dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. They had sought a Mandamus to consider their claim for promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff, without insisting on the educational qualification of a pass in SSLC.
The High Court rejected the claim on the ground that the previous judgment of the Court dated 22.7.2009 in the batch of cases, ion which they had placed quite high reliance is no longer of any relevance,,after the coming into force of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and that the date on which the vacancies arose cannot determine the Rule applicable for recruitment by promotion.
Examining the matter, the Supreme Court bench comprising of the Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian observed that after the implementation of the recommendations of (i) the Shetty Commission and (ii) the Tamil Nadu V Pay Commission, no one was entitled to claim a right to promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff, without the qualifications prescribed. It further observed:
"The argument revolving around the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and the fact that vacancies arose in the year 2015, prior to the enactment, are of no relevance. This Act was enacted to consolidate the law relating to recruitment and the terms and conditions of service of persons appointed to the State and Subordinate services in the State of Tamil Nadu, in terms of the mandate contained in Article 309. Until the advent of this Act, the State of Tamil Nadu, like many other States, was only issuing Rules in exercise of the power conferred by the Proviso to Article 309, though such Rules were meant only to be a stop gap arrangement until an Act of the legislature was made"
Holding thus, the bench dismissed the SLPs.
Case no.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.6439 of 2020 Case name: R. PALANISAMY vs. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRASCoram: Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. RamasubramanianCounsel: Advocate Purushottam Sharma Tripathi
Click here to Read/Download Judgment