@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
B. Rajendran, J.@mdashThe first petitioner was initially appointed as junior Assistnat on 04.04.1973, having been selected by the Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission. After passing the departmental test and completion of probation, the first petitioner was temporarily promoted as
Assistant and he joined the post on 07.10.1974. Subsequently, his service has been regularised from 19.11.1975. Similarly, the second petitioner
was appointed on 05.04.1973 and she was promoted as Assistant with effect from 07.10.1974 and her service was also regularised from
19.11.1975. The third petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 15.03.1974 and she was temporarily promoted as Assistant with
effect from 17.05.1976 and her services have been regularised from 15.03.1997. The petitioners have been repeatedly making representations for
regularisation of their service in the cadre of Accountant from the date of their initial appointment. According to the petitioners, as per G.O. Ms.
No. 440, Finance (T & A) Department dated 30.05.1986, certain Accountants in the South Arcot District Treasury Unit were included in the
panel of Assistants in the year 1971-1973, however, their request for such inclusion in the panel were not considered on the ground that the Rule
contemplating a crucial date for preparation of panel was introduced only on 11.06.1976 as 15th march every year and the same was
incorporated in Rule 13(a) of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. Therefore, the question of insisting on the possession of the
required qualification on a crucial date has no statutory backing in cases prior to 11.06.1976. According to the petitioners, the promotion in their
cases have been made prior to 11.06.1976 and hence, they are eligible for regularisation with effect from the dates on which they were promoted
as Assistants and they are also fully qualified for such promotion. The petitioners would contend that even though the respondents had been
adopting prior to 11.06.1976 the crucial date as 15th March every year, that had no statutory backing as the same was not incorporated in the
Rules and that cannot be binding on the petitioners of their promotion. The petitioners relies upon the case of certain other persons who are
identically placed and who have approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1733 of 1989 and O.A. No. 3848 of 1992 batch in which they
sought to regularise their service as Accountants in the Treasury departments with effect from the date of their appointment to the said post, if they
are qualified on that date. Therefore, the only contentions is the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in that case is applicable to them. Therefore,
citing the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, they have submitted a representation to the respondents, which was rejected by the second
respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 24.10.1997 informing the petitioners that such benefit cannot be made applicable to them.
Therefore, challenging the same, the petitioners have filed Original Application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood
transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 33644 of 2006.
2. The respondents have filed a detailed reply affidavit contending that as the petitioners are not parties to the original application before the
Tribunal, they cannot, as a matter of right, claim such relief. Therefore, their claim was rightly rejected by the second respondent by the impugned
order. It is also submitted that the petitioners passed the Accounts test for Subordinate Service Part I and II in May 1974 and the D.O.M. Test in
November 1973. Therefore, the petitioners were temporarily promoted and their service in the cadre of Accountant were also regularised. It is
further submitted that the petitioners were temporarily promoted on 07.10.1974, 07.10.1974 and 17.05.1976 respectively. Therefore, their
request for regularisation from the date of temporary appointment is not feasible. It was specifically contended that even though the services are
regularised with effect from 19.11.1975 and 15.07.1976 respectively, the did not prefer any appeal to the appellate authority for the past 22
years. According to Rule 35(f) of General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service, application for revision of seniority of a person in a
service, class, category or grade shall be submitted to the appointing authority within a period of three years from the date of appointment to such
service, class, category or grade within a period of three years from the date of order fixing the seniority as the case may be and any application
received after the said period of three years shall be summarily rejected. Therefore, on this ground also, the representation of the petitioners have
to be construed as time barred. It is also contended that excepting the third petitioner, the petitioners 1 and 2 are not fully qualified for holding the
post of Accountant on the date of their temporary promotion. Therefore also, the writ petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be rejected. As
far as the case filed by similarly placed persons before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1733 of 1989 and O.A. No. 3848 of 1992 batch, by order dated
14.03.1991 and 29.11.1994 is concerned, the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications partially for service benefits other than seniority. Further,
though the above said case relates to regularisation in the cadre of Accountant, the above two cases were allowed based on the timely
representations submitted by the applicants therein. Whereas, the petitioners have kept quiet for more than two decades and raised objections only
in the year 1995, hence, their claim is highly belated and the writ petition is not maintainable.
3. Heard both sides. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants on various dates mentioned above and they were given temporary
promotion on completion of necessary tests on 07.10.1974, 07.10.1974 and 17.05.1976 respectively. The petitioners would now contend that
even though their services were regularised on 19.11.1975 and 15.03.1977 respectively, they ought to have been regularised from the date of their
original promotion even though it is temporary namely 07.10.1974, 07.10.1974 and 17.05.1976 respectively. In the reply of the respondents, it
has been categorically stated that the petitioners were originally given a temporary promotion. Further, excepting the third petitioner, the other two
petitioners are not even qualified for such temporary promotion at the relevant point of time. It is also stated that later on their services were
regularised on 19.11.1975, 19.11.1975 and 15.03.1977 respectively by which time, admittedly, they had the requisite qualification. Therefore, the
only point remains to be considered is whether the petitioners, whose services have been regularised, can challenge the same at this length of time.
4. It is seen from the records that for the first time, the petitioners have submitted a representation seeking regularisation from the date of their
original temporary appointment in the year 1994. Even that representation came to be made by them on hearing that the Tribunal, in identical case,
has passed an order on in O.A. No. 1733 of 1989 and O.A. No. 3848 of 1992 batch, by order dated 14.03.1991 and 29.11.1994. In that
judgment, the Tribunal has only allowed the Original Applications partially for service benefits other than seniority. According to the respondents,
the petitioners in that Original Applications have approached the respondents by submitting representations in time and therefore their claim was
ordered to be considered by the Tribunal. Whereas, in the present, case, after 22 years, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the
respondents seeking retrospective regularisation and when it was refused by the second respondent, the Original Application was filed before the
Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the view that the Original Application filed by the petitioners is definitely time barred and it is hit by the principles of
laches. Furthermore, the petitioners have not impleaded the persons, who are likely to be affected in the event of the relief being granted by the
Court by revising the seniority. In any event, the petitioners have not explained the reasons for the inordinate delay in seeking the relief after 22
years. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.
