Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
S.ARUMUGHAM & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/1997
BENCH:
SUJATA V. MANOHAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa
R. Mohan, Sr. Adv., M.A. Krishnamoorthy, J.B. Ravi,
Rajsekaran, Advs. with him for the appellants.
Ms. Asha Jain Madan, B.P. Singh, R.A. Perumal, Advs. for the
Respondents.
J U D G M E N T S
The following judgment of the Court wad delivered:
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar. J.
These appeals arise from the order dated 30.4.1991 of
the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 1969,
3631, 3975,3976 all of 1990 O.A. No. 192 of 1991. All these
applications had been filed by persons who were working as
Superintendents in the office of the Director of Urban Land
Ceiling and Urban Land Tax. They challenged G.O.Ms. No. 145
(Revenue) dated 29.1.1990 issued by the appellant State of
Tamil Nadu increasing the quota of Superintendents working
in various specified offices for deputation as Tehsildars in
the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service since they were
not satisfied with the quota for which they were eligible.
The Tribunal has set aside G.O.Ms. No. 145 (revenue) dated
29.1.1990 and has directed the appellants to review their
scheme as far as the Secretariat staff is concerned and has
directed them to evolve a different scheme which would give
the staff a wider perspective in all aspects of executive
works which, according to the Tribunal, would be more useful
to the staff in the Secretariat working in different
departments. The Tribunal has also directed all Revenue
officers to be clubbed into one group and for the manner of
deputing officers from that group it has also given
directions as to how such grouping could be made. The
decision of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has been
challenged by the appellants before us.
Those who have been deputed as Tehsildars become
eligible for further promotion as Deputy Collector in the
Tamil Nadu Civil Service. The post of Tehsildar is governed
by the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules.
Recruitment to this post is from two sources - (1) by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
promotion from Deputy Tehsildars in the Tamil Nadu Revenue
subordinate Service or (2) by deputation from amongst
Section Officers in the Secretariat and t he Superintendents
in the office of the Board of Revenue (Land Revenue), Board
of Revenue (food production), Board of Revenue Settlement
of estates, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, the
Director of Service Settlements, the Director of Harijan and
Tribal welfare, the Director of Backward Classes, the
Director of Rehabilitation, the Commissioner of Agricultural
Income-tax, the Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban
Land Tax and the Board of Revenue (land Reforms), who had
rendered satisfactory service as such for two years and who
are otherwise qualified for appointment as Tehsildar. The
Board of Revenue was abolished with effect from 1.12.1980 by
reason of the Tamil Nadu Board of Revenue (Abolition) Act of
1980. Prior to its abolition the Board of Revenue Comprised
the following branches:-
(1) Land Revenue including excise;
(2) Commercial Taxes;
(3) Food Production ;
(4) Settlement of Estates;
(5) Transport;
(6) Agricultural income-tax;
(7) Urban Land Ceiling and Urban
Land Tax; and
(8) Land reforms.
The Land Revenue branch of the Board of Revenue enjoyed
a pre-eminent position because the Land Revenue branch was
in overall control of the entire Revenue Department, while
the other branches had specific functions and, therefore,
had a limited field of activity. After the abolition of the
Board of Revenue the Land Revenue branch has been replaced
by the office of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Revenue Administration. the other branches also have
become separate. Some sections are headed by commissioners,
such as, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, the
commissioner of Land Administration and so on. The branch of
Urban Land Ceiling and urban land Tax has been replaced by
the Directorate of Urban Land Ceiling and Land Tax.
Under G.O. Ms. No. 276 (Revenue) dated 31.1.1950 the
appellants decided that the Superintendents of the
Secretariat and the Superintendents of the Board of Revenue
who were qualified for appointed to the Madras Revenue
Subordinate Service as was then being done, be deputed to
undergo training in the districts for a total period of
three years in the Madras Revenue Subordinate Service,
namely, six months as Deputy Tehsildars, six months as
Stationary Sub-Magistrate and two years as Tehsildars. They
should then be reverted to the Secretariat or the Board of
Revenue, as the case may be, and be considered for inclusion
in the Deputy Collectors’ list. The G.O.Ms. further stated
that in order to safeguard the prospects of the men in the
mofussil the deputation of the city-men working in these
offices should be restricted to 3 or 4 a year. The number
was subsequently restricted to 3 per year. Under G.O.Ms. No.
1154 (Revenue) dated 16.4.1959 the number of Superintendents
to be so deputed as Tehsildars was increased from 3 to 6 per
year. By another G.O.Ms. No. 2584 (Revenue) dated 4.9.1959
the Government reserved two posts out of six for the
Revenue secretariat on the ground that the training of
Superintendents of the Revenue Secretariat in the Madras
Revenue Subordinate Service Will increase the standard of
efficiency in the Revenue Secretariat which is concerned
with most of the subjects that are dealt with by
Tehsildar/Deputy Tehsildar in the district.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
By G.O.Ms. No.2982 (Revenue) dated 28.10.1968 the
number to be sent on deputation was once again increased
from 6 to 8. It was further decided that as a convention, 2
vacancies shall be reserved for the Board of Revenue, Land
Revenue branch. By this G.O.Ms. Superintendents in the
Directorate of Harijan Welfare were also included to
accommodate a wider Zone of selection. In the Board’s
proceedings dated 22.2.1975 one post was reserved for the
Superintendents of the Food production branch in the Board
of Revenue.
In G.O.Ms. 426 (Revenue) dated 24.2.1975 it was
mentioned that the facility of inclusion in this list is
available to the staff employed in the office of the Board
of Revenue specifying the different branches which were so
eligible. For the first time, the staff of the Urban land
Ceiling and urban Land Taxes branch was also included.
Under G.O.Ms. No. 299 (Revenue) dated 10.2.1977 some
more offices were brought within the purview of the scheme.
The total number of deputationist was increased to 10 and
the allocation was as follows:-
3 - Departments of the Secretariat;
3 - Board of Revenue (Land Revenue)
4 - Other City Offices.
This G.O.Ms. sets out in detail the reasons for such
allocation. It also sets out that there will be difficulties
in preparing a common list of Superintendents in the order
of seniority amongst different Section Officers of the
Secretariat and the Superintendents of other offices and,
therefore, they have prescribed the quota. It is necessary
to note that under this G.O.Ms. in 1977 itself the Land
Revenue branch of the Board of Revenue was given a specific
allocation of three posts while the other City offices were,
between them, given an allocation of 4 posts.
This allocation was revised by G.O.Ms. No. 145
(Revenue) dated 29.1.1990 which is under challenge before
us. The reason why a fresh G.O.Ms. was required to be issued
was that the Government decided to increase the number of
posts from 10 to 16 for the City list because of the overall
expansion in the posts of Tehsildars. This G.O.Ms. retains
the classification which was in existence right from 1977
under the G.O.Ms. of 10.2.1977. But the departments of the
Secretariat the original allocation of 3 posts has been
increased now to 5 posts. In the erstwhile Board of Revenue
(Land Revenue) branch which originally had 3 posts under the
G.O.Ms. of 1977 these posts have now been increased to 5. In
view of the abolition of the Board of Revenue. these 5 posts
have gone to the office of the Special Commissioner and
commissioner of Land Revenue Administration which has
replaced the Land Revenue branch of the Board of Revenue.
these 5 posts have gone to the office of the special
Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Revenue Administration
which has replaced the Land Revenue branch of the Board of
Revenue. The other city offices have now been allotted 6
seats instead of 4 seats.
In their affidavit which was filed by the appellants
before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal the appellants
have explained in detail the ration of such allocation. They
have pointed out that the Special Commissioner and the
Commissioner of Land Revenue Administration, occupies a
special place in this programme because it is this
department (originally the land Revenue branch of the Board
of Revenue) which handles the overall control of the entire
Revenue Department. Training as Deputy Tehsildars/
Tehsildars is of special relevance for the efficient
functioning of this department. The appellants have also
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
pointed out that the avenues for promotion in the office of
the special Commissioner and Commissioner of land Revenue
Administration are more limited than the avenues of
promotion in all other departments. In their affidavit they
have set out in detail the avenues of promotion available in
each of the offices which are governed by the scheme in
order to substantiate this submission.
The contention of the Superintendents working in the
Directorate of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax appears
to be that they also originally formed a part of the Board
of Revenue and , therefore, they should not be clubbed with
the other city offices under this G.O.Ms. They should be
clubbed with the superintendents in the office of the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Revenue
Administration. They are forgetting that even under G.O.Ms.
of 1977 the separate allocation of 3 seats was only for the
Land Revenue Branch of the Board of Revenue and not for all
the branches of the Board of Revenue. In 1977 they had been
clubbed along with other city offices for the allocation of
seats. if the reasoning of the respondents is to be accepted
other offices which also formed a part of the original Board
of Revenues would also have to be similarly treated. There
is no justification at all for any grievance in this
connection because right from the beginning of the scheme.
It has been clearly provided that the original Land Revenue
Administration, ad a special nexus with the functioning of
the office of the Tehsildar/Deputy Tehsildar; and the
training they would obtain on deputation would be directly
relevant for the purpose of improving their efficiency in
the parent department. it is also clear that at no point of
time there was any allocation made in proportion to the
number f Superintendents in any office. The allocation was
made for the purpose of ensuring, first of all, that the
Superintendents in the office of the Board of Revenue, Land
Revenue branch got a reasonable allocation for deputation in
order to improve their efficiency; and secondly to give to
Superintendents working in other offices, and in the
Secretariat, an additional avenue of promotion. The
allocation has also been made on the basis of the prospects
of promotion available in various offices in the city. The
allocation has been in force since 1977 and it has stood the
test of time.
The tribunal itself came to the conclusion that
combining all the departments and having a common seniority
list was neither justified nor feasible. But it has given
directions for a different kind of allocation and a
different scheme. These directions pertain to policy
matters. The Tribunal ought not to have directed the
Government to change its policy. The Government has a right
to frame a policy to ensure efficiency and proper
administration and to provide suitable channels of promotion
to officers working in different departments and offices. In
Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers Association
and Ors. vs. Indian Railway Traffic Service Association and
Anr. (1993 Supp. 4 SCC 473), this Court reiterated that the
correctness of a policy should not be questioned by the
Tribunal. The appellants in their affidavit before the
Tribunal have given in detail the history of these
provisions and the justification for these provisions in the
interests of efficiency and proper administration. The
Tribunal cannot substitute its own views for the views of
the Government or direct a new policy based on the Tribunal’
view of how the allocation should be made. The three groups
which have been formed as far back as in 1977 for the
purposes of allocation consist of officers performing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
different functions and having different prospects and
different avenues of promotion. They cannot be equated for
the purpose of Article 14 or 16. In the case of Govind
Dattatray Kelkar & Ors. vs. Chief Controller of Imports &
Exports & Ors. (1967 [2] SCR 29), this Court held that the
concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be
predicated only when promotees are drawn from the same
source. if the preferential treatment of one source in
relation to the other is based on the difference between the
two sources, the recruitment can be justified as legitimate
classification. This reasoning directly applies in the
present case. Therefore, the scheme does not violate
Articles 14 or 16, nor is it arbitrary. The quota which
should be fixed or the allocation which should be made for
the purpose of deputing officers to the Tamil Nadu Revenue
Subordinate Service is basically in the domain of the
executive. Unless there is a clear violation of any
provision of the Constitution, the Tribunal ought not to
have given directions for formulating a new policy and a
different quota.
The impugned order of the Tribunal is, therefor, set
aside and the applications filed before the Tribunal are
dismissed. The appeals are allowed accordingly with costs.