REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.251-256 OF 2015

A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC.                                      ...Appellant    

VERSUS

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,                 ...Respondents THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT & ORS. & ETC.       

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.257-258 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.259-260 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.261-262 OF 2015

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1624-1625 OF 2015 CONMT. PET.(C) NO.51/2013 IN C.A. NO.2252 OF 2009

CONMT. PET.(C) NO.173/2013 IN C.A. NO.2252 OF 2009 CONMT. PET.(C) NO.750/2017 IN C.A. NO.2251 OF 2009  

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 09.03.2012

passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in WA (MD)

Nos.1285-1290 of 2011 in and by which the High Court has set

aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the respondents

1

to draw the seniority list taking Direct recruit Assistants, Promotee

graduate  Assistants  and  Promotee  non-graduate  Assistants  as

one  group  for  promotion  as  Deputy  Tahsildar.   The  order  of

dismissal  of  the  review  petitions  by  the  High  Court  is  also

impugned in these appeals.

2. The issue involved in these appeals is the implementation

of the amended Rule 5(g) in Annexure-III, item No. (ii) of the Tamil

Nadu  Revenue  Subordinate  Service  Rules  (TNRSS  Rules)

coupled  with  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  M.

Rathinaswami  and  Others  v.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  Others

(2009) 5 SCC 625 by which the Supreme Court read down the

Rule insofar as the Promotee graduate Assistants and upheld the

validity of the Rule to the extent it gives preference to the Direct

recruit  Assistants  over  the  Promotee  non-graduate  Assistants.

The post of Assistant in Revenue Department is filled up by two

sources; one is by direct recruitment through Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission and other is by promotion from the category

of Junior Assistants with the minimum qualification of SSLC. The

post of Assistant in Revenue Department in the State of Tamil

Nadu is governed by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.

The said Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred by

2

proviso to  Article  309 of  the Constitution of  India.   As per the

original TNRSS Rules, the  inter-se seniority of the Direct recruit

Assistants in the Districts shall be fixed in the following cyclical

order irrespective of the date of their joining of the duty:-

Annexure IX (Referred to in Rule 3g(b)(ii)

First two vacancies : Persons appointed by promotion

Third vacancy : Persons appointed by  direct recruitment  

Fourth  and  fifth vacancies

: Persons appointed by promotion

Sixth vacancy : Persons appointed by  direct recruitment  

3. The  Direct  recruit  Assistants  in  Revenue  Department

submitted representation that they be given preferential treatment

in  the  matter  of  promotion  to  the  cadre  of  Deputy  Tahsildar

without basing their seniority in the Assistant list. In G.O. No.884

dated  12.08.1992,  Revenue  Department  directed  the  Special

Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration to

send  necessary  draft  amendment  to  the  Special  Rules  to  the

TNRSS  Rules  so  as  to  consider  the  cases  of  Direct  recruit

3

Assistants in the District Revenue Administration on completion of

five  years  training  for  inclusion  in  the  Deputy  Tahsildar  list.

Accordingly,  the  Principal  Commissioner  and  Commissioner  of

Revenue Administration  had  sent  proposals  for  amendment  to

Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III to Special Rules for the TNRSS. The

State Government approved the draft  amendment to Rule 5(g)

and Annexure-III  Item (ii)  to  the Special  Rules for  the TNRSS

Rules in G.O. No.133 dated 07.02.1995. The said amendment

reads as under:-

“NOTIFICATION

In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  the  proviso  to

Article  309 of  the Constitution of  India,  the Governor of  Tamil

Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the Special

Rules for the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Section

28 in Volume III of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual, 1970.

2. The amendments hereby made shall be deemed to have

come into force on the 4th December, 1978.

AMENDMENTS

……..

2. In Annexure III, in item (ii), for the last proviso, the following  

provision(s) shall be substituted namely:-

“provided  also  that  an  Assistant  appointed  by  direct

recruitment  in  the  office  of  the  erstwhile  Board  of

Revenue,  who has  completed  a  total  service  of  five

years, passed all the tests prescribed and undergone

training as Firka Revenue Inspector for a period of two

4

years successfully shall be eligible for inclusion of his

name  in  the  approved  list  of  Deputy  Tahsildars  for

Madras City, above his seniors appointed other than by

direct recruitment or for re-fixation of his seniority over

such seniority, if his name has already been included in

the list of Deputy Tahsildars. The consideration of his

claim shall be against the first vacancy that follows the

carried over vacancies.  

3. After the proviso so substituted, the following proviso

shall be added:-

“Provided  also  that  an  Assistant  appointed  by  direct

recruitment  in  the  District  Revenue  Unit,  who  has

completed a total period of five years, passed all  the

tests  prescribed  and  undergone  training  as  Firka

Renevue  Inspector  for  a  period  of  two  years

successfully, shall be eligible for inclusion of his name

in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars in the District

above  his  seniors  appointed  other  than  by  direct

recruitment or for re-fixation of his seniority over such

seniors, if his name has already been included in the

list of Deputy Tahsildars. The consideration of his claim

shall  be  against  the  first  vacancy  that  follows  the

carried over vacancies”.  

4. The Promotee Assistants challenged the said amendment

by  filing  O.A.  No.2113  of  1995  before  the  Tamil  Nadu

Administrative  Tribunal,  Chennai.  The  Tribunal  set  aside  the

amendment  and the G.O. No.884 dated 12.08.1992 and  G.O.

No.133  dated  07.02.1995 vide its  order  dated  26.02.1997.

5

Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the Government of Tamil

Nadu filed SLP(C) Nos.1821-1823 of 1999 (C.A.Nos.2727-2729

of  2000) in  which the Supreme Court  granted  interim stay  on

16.04.1999. The same was subsequently modified by the order

dated  10.04.2000  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  specifically

directed  that  the  stay  of  reversion  shall  continue  and  G.O.

Nos.884  and  133  will  be  implemented  prospectively  i.e.  with

effect  from 07.02.1995 and not  retrospectively  with  a  mention

that the promotions made will be subject to the final result of the

appeal.   Since  the  SLPs  were  filed  after  the  decision  in  L.

Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others (1997) 3 SCC 261,

the Supreme Court by its order dated 13.08.2003 disposed of the

appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu by giving liberty to the

State of Tamil Nadu to approach the High Court.  Pursuant to the

order of the Supreme Court, the State filed Writ Petition in W.P.

Nos.27173-27174  of  2003  before  the  High  Court  of  Madras

challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 26.02.1997. By the

common judgment dated 10.09.2005, the High Court set aside

the order of the Tribunal dated 26.02.1997 and upheld the G.O.

Nos.884 and 133 dated 12.08.1992 and 07.02.1995.

6

5. Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  High  Court,  Promotee

Assistants  filed  appeal  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  CA

Nos.2251-2252  of  2009.  The  Supreme Court  upheld  the  G.O.

No.884 dated 12.08.1992 and G.O.No.133 dated 07.02.1995 and

partly allowed the appeals vide judgment dated 08.04.2009 in M.

Rathinaswami v. State of T.N. (2009) 5 SCC 625.  The Supreme

Court  upheld  the  validity  of  the  amendment  to  Rule  5(g)  and

Annexure-III item(ii) of TNRSS Rules to the extent that it gives

preference to the Direct recruit Assistants over the Promotee non-

graduate  Assistants  observing  that  the  very  basis  for  the

distinction sought to be drawn is that direct recruits are graduates

and hence, intellectually superior to non-graduates. However, the

Supreme Court  read  down  the  rule  to  save  it  from becoming

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held that

once  a  promotee  becomes  a  graduate,  there  cannot  be  any

rational basis for making a distinction vis-à-vis direct recruits and

held  that  the  rule  is  inapplicable  to  the  promotees  who  are

graduates. In paras No. (19), (22) and (32), the Supreme Court

held as under:-

7

“19. In  our  opinion,  by  the  very  same logic  given  by  the

respondent and the High Court, a promotee Assistant who is

also a graduate has to be placed on a par with the direct

recruits because he has also got a degree. In our opinion, we

have  to  hence  read  down  the  impugned  amendment  and

interpret it as inapplicable to those promotee Assistants who

are  also  graduates/postgraduates.  In  other  words,  the

impugned amendment will only enable the direct recruits to

be placed above those promotee Assistants who are non-

graduates for the purpose of promotion as Deputy Tahsildar.

22. In the present case, both the directly recruited Assistants

and  promoted  Assistants  have  been  integrated  into  one

cadre of Assistants. No doubt, even after this integration for

further  classification  for  promotion  higher  educational

qualifications  can  possibly  be  a  rational  basis,  but  in  our

opinion  there  can  certainly  be  no  further  classification

between direct recruits and those promotee Assistants who

have  acquired  the  graduation  qualification  whether  before

joining as Junior Assistant  or thereafter.  Once a promotee

becomes a graduate we cannot see any rational basis for

discrimination against him vis-à-vis direct recruits.

32. For the reasons given above these appeals are partly

allowed and the impugned judgment is partly set aside, and it

is  held  that  the impugned rule  so far  as it  places directly

recruited Assistants above the promotees for promotion as

Deputy Tahsildar shall  only apply to those promotees who

are non-graduates, but it is inapplicable to those promotees

who are graduates.”

6. In compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the

Government  issued  directions  to  the  Principal  Secretary  and

8

Commissioner  of  Revenue  Administration,  Chennai  in

Letter (MS) No.305 dated 07.08.2009 to implement the order of

the Supreme Court in letter and spirit and the District Collectors

were instructed to take necessary follow up action to implement

the order.  Accordingly, the District Collectors of Tiruchirappalli,

Sivagangai,  Tirunelveli,  Madurai,  Coimbatore  and  Vellore  have

passed orders redrawing the seniority list by treating the Direct

recruit Assistants on par with the Promotee graduate Assistants

and redrawn the panel of Deputy Tahsildars and this has effected

the seniority of number of Direct recruit Assistants.  

7. Being aggrieved by the orders of the District Collectors, a

batch of writ petitions were filed by the Promotee non-graduate

Assistants, praying to stay the orders of redrawal of the seniority

list. The Direct recruit Assistants also filed a batch of writ petitions

against the revised list of Deputy Tahsildars by District Collectors

of Tiruchirappalli, Sivaganga and Tirunelveli inter-alia challenging

their  reversion  inter  alia contending  that  the  revised  lists  also

contained  the  names  of  Promotee  Assistants  who  are  non-

graduates. The Single Judge of the High Court initially vide order

dated 19.04.2010 directed the authorities to maintain  status quo

in the writ petitions filed by Direct recruit Assistants. However, the

9

Single  Judge  vide order  dated  12.10.2011  dismissed  the  writ

petitions holding that the judgment of the Supreme Court dated

08.04.2009  is  declaratory  and  binding  on  all  concerned.  The

learned  Single  Judge  held  that  no  direction  to  implement  the

order of the Supreme Court is necessary as the direction of the

Supreme  Court  is  bound  to  be  obeyed  by  all  authorities

concerned including the District Collectors.

8. Challenging  the  judgment  of  the  Single  Judge  dated

12.10.2011, a batch of writ appeals were filed before the Madurai

Bench of Madras High Court. The Madurai Bench vide common

judgment dated 09.03.2012 set aside the judgment of the Single

Judge and directed the State of Tamil Nadu to draw the seniority

list taking Direct recruit Assistants, graduate promotees as well as

non-graduate promotees forming as one group and directed the

State to  draw the  panel  as  on 04.12.1978 and reconsider  the

promotion subject to the candidates satisfying the criteria required

under the rules within a period of two months.  While passing the

impugned judgment, the Division Bench took into consideration

the Letter (MS) No.392 dated 30.12.2011 in and by which the

government  accepted  the  proposal  of  the  Principal  Secretary,

Revenue to dispense with the degree or graduation as minimum

10

educational  qualification  for  the  post  of  Deputy  Tahsildar  and

directed  to  take  non-graduate  promotees  along  with  graduate

promotees  and  direct  recruits  as  one  group,  based  on  the

seniority as on 04.12.1978 for the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The

Division Bench also directed the State not to disturb the cases of

those candidates who were already promoted but not in service

either on account of retirement on superannuation or by reason of

death. The review petitions filed by the appellants herein were

dismissed by the Madurai  bench of  Madras High Court.  Being

aggrieved, the appellants and others have filed these appeals.  

9. We  have  heard  Mr.  Shekhar  Naphade  and  Mr.  P.S.

Narsimha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.

We have heard Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for

the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu.  We  have  heard  Mrs.  Nalini

Chidambaram and Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel

appearing for Promotee graduate Assistants.  We have heard Mr.

R.  Viduthalai,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  Promotee

non-graduate  Assistants.   We  have  perused  the  impugned

judgment and materials on record.   

10. The  question  involved  in  these  appeals  is  the

implementation of the amendment to Rule 5(g) of TNRSS Rules

11

and  Annexure-III,  item(ii)  coupled  with  the  judgment  of  the

Supreme Court in  Rathinaswami in and by which the Supreme

Court  upheld  the  amendment  to  the  rule  qua  Promotee  non-

graduate  Assistants  and  read  down  the  rule  insofar  as  the

Promotee graduate Assistants.

11. The  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  issued  G.O.  No.884  whereby

directions  were  issued  to  amend  Rule  5(g)  and  Annexure-III,

item(ii)  of  TNRSS  Rules  retrospectively  i.e.  with  effect  from

04.12.1978.  Accordingly,  G.O.  No.133  dated  07.02.1995  was

issued providing amendment to the statutory Rules. The validity

of the amendment to Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III item (ii) to the

TNRSS Rules in G.O. Nos. 884 and 133 dated 12.08.1992 and

07.02.1995  has  been  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court  in

Rathinaswami. While upholding the amendment to the Rule, the

Supreme Court read down into the Rule to the extent that it gives

preference to  the  Direct  Recruit  Assistants  over  the  Promotee

Assistants who are graduates.  The Supreme Court held that the

amended rule giving preference to the Direct recruit  Assistants

would  be  applicable  only  to  the  Promotee  non-graduate

Assistants  and  Rule  would  be  inapplicable  to  the  Promotee

Assistants who are graduates.   

12

12. In  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme Court  in  Rathinaswami,

there is no specific clarification as to the mode of implementation

of the judgment dated 08.04.2009 and as to how the Promotee

graduate  Assistants  and  Direct  recruit  Assistants  are  to  be

integrated  for  considering  them  for  promotion  as  Deputy

Tahsildars;  whether  prospectively  or  retrospectively  with  effect

from 04.12.1978.   

13. The State of Tamil Nadu by its Letter (MS) No.305 dated

07.08.2009 directed the District Collectors to implement the order

of the Supreme Court in letter and spirit.  In the absence of any

clarification in  the judgment  of  the Supreme Court,  the District

Collectors passed various types of orders reversing promotions

effected between 1995 to 2009 and placing Promotee graduate

Assistants in the earlier  panel  by revising the seniority thereby

upsetting the promotions not only in the rank of Deputy Tahsildars

but also further promotions were effected.  It is stated that some

of the District Collectors implemented the order of the Supreme

Court dated 08.04.2009 with retrospective effect i.e. 04.12.1978.

After  amendment  of  Tamil  Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service

Rules  vide G.O.  No.133  dated  07.02.1995,  promotions  were

13

effected in all the categories.  Promotions were effected not only

to  the category  of  Deputy  Tahsildar but  further promotions are

made  to  the  post  of  Tahsildars,  Deputy  Collectors,  District

Revenue Officers etc.  Be it  noted that in the judgment of this

Court  dated 08.04.2009,  no specific  directions were issued for

revision of seniority list  or to upset the promotions which were

already given.

14. Letter No.392 dated 30.12.2011:- The Supreme Court  in

paras (25) and (26) in Rathinaswami held that “whether graduate

degree  is  a  sufficient  basis  for  classification  vis-à-vis non-

graduates and whether such classification has rationale relation

to the nature of duties of a Deputy Tahsildar” is for the State of

Tamil  Nadu  to  decide  and  “only  executive  authorities  have

expertise in administrative matters and it is ordinarily not proper

for the Supreme Court to sit in appeal over the decisions unless it

is  something  totally  arbitrary  or  shocking.”   Based  on  the

observations  of  the  Supreme Court,  Principal  Secretary  to  the

State Government vide its Letter (MS) No.392 dated 30.12.2011

recommended for amendment to Rule 5(g) of the TNRSS Rules

Annexure-III, item (ii) to the effect that it may not be appropriate to

prescribe  graduation  or  degree  as  minimum  educational

14

qualification for the post of Deputy Tahsildar.  The State of Tamil

Nadu  vide its  letter  dated  30.12.2011  accepted  the

recommendation  of  the  Principal  Secretary/Commissioner  of

Revenue Administration and directed not to prescribe degree or

graduation  as  minimum  qualification  for  the  post  of  Deputy

Tahsildar.  Acceptance of the recommendation of dispensing with

the  graduation  as  the  essential  qualification  is  still  under

consideration of the State Government. In that letter, Government

merely accepted the recommendations of the Principal Secretary

and Commissioner of Revenue who has opined that it may not be

appropriate  to  prescribe  graduate  qualification  as  essential

qualification for the post of Deputy Tahsildar.  It is to be pointed

out that at this stage, appointment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar

is governed by rules framed under proviso to Article 309. In the

absence of  any amendment  to  such rules,  the decision of  the

Government, as accepted in the letter dated 30.12.2011 issued in

Letter (MS) No.392, has no consequence so far as non-graduate

Promotees are concerned.  

15. The  Division  Bench  did  not  keep  in  view  that  the  letter

No.392 dated 30.12.2011 is still only a proposal and the rules are

yet to be amended.  The Division Bench fell in error by relying

15

upon the said letter dated 30.12.2011 and erred in directing the

State to treat the Promotee non-graduate Assistants, Promotee

graduate Assistants and Direct recruit Assistants as one category

and draw revised seniority list for the purpose of promotion to the

post of Deputy Tahsildar.  The Division Bench failed to notice that

the amendment to Rule 5(g) of TNRSS Rules by G.O. No.133

dated 07.02.1995 has been upheld by the Supreme Court and

has attained finality.  The direction of the Division Bench to treat

all  three  categories  viz.  Promotee  non-graduate  Assistants,

Promotee  graduate  Assistants  and  Direct  recruit  Assistants  as

one  group  for  the  promotion  to  the  post  of  Deputy  Tahsildar

virtually amounts to reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court.

In our considered view, the direction of the Division Bench in the

impugned judgment is wholly misconceived.   

16. In  these  appeals,  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  has  filed  two

counters. In the counter filed in November, 2013, in para No. (5),

the State Government has taken a stand that “the direction of the

Division  Bench  in  the  impugned  judgment  categories  non-

graduate  promotee  along  with  graduate  promotee  and  Direct

Recruits” as “one group” is aggreable to the State Government

and  only  on  that  basis,  the  State  Government  issued  letter

16

No.392 dated 30.12.2011.  The stand of the State Government in

para  No.  (5)  of  its  counter  filed  in  November,  2013  is

unacceptable as it is in clear deviation from the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Rathinaswami.  Of course, subsequently in the

common rejoinder filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the State has

taken  the  stand  that  the  averments  raised  by  the  State

Government in para No. (5) of the affidavit are not acceptable and

not a correct  stand.   In the rejoinder,  it  is  further  averred that

based on the amended rule since promotions have been effected,

government  has  decided  not  to  disturb  the  313  Direct  recruit

Assistants who had already been included in the panel of Deputy

Tahsildars from the year 1995 and further promotions have been

effected as Tahsildars etc. The State Government has also taken

a clear stand that  the implementation of  the order of the High

Court dated 09.03.2012 with effect from 04.12.1978 would result

in reversion of 313 Direct recruit Assistants who had already been

promoted by  virtue  of  preferential  treatment.  The stand of  the

State  Government  not  to  disturb  313  Direct  recruit  Assistants

reads as under:-

“….the Government considering the earlier G.Os 884 and 133

having  been  implemented  from  1995  and  that  too  with  the

intervention of orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court

17

have decided not to disturb the 313 DRAs who had already been

included in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars from the year 1995

and to implement orders of the Supreme Court from the date of

orders i.e. 08.04.2009……”

17. As discussed earlier, as per G.O. Nos. 884 and 133 dated

12.08.1992 and 07.02.1995 respectively and the amendment to

Rule  5(g)  of  TNRSS Rules  had been upheld  by  the  Supreme

Court, of course, by reading down into the Rule that the Promotee

graduate Assistants are to be treated on par with Direct recruit

Assistants.  The  classification  of  the  “Promotee  graduate

Assistants” on par with Direct recruit Assistants is only by virtue of

the  order  of  the  Supreme Court  dated  08.04.2009.   As rightly

pointed  out  by  Mr.  Shekhar  Naphade,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing  for  the  appellants  and  Mr.  V.  Giri,  learned  senior

counsel appearing for the State, the implementation of the order

with  effect  from  04.12.1978  would  create  unprecedented

confusion  and  upset  the  settled  position  of  Direct  recruit

Assistants who had been promoted from 1995 till 2009 by virtue

of  the  amended  Rule  conferring  preferential  treatment  on  the

Direct recruit Assistants.  If such a course of action is permitted, it

would seriously prejudice the rights of those of the Direct recruit

Assistants who have been promoted from 1995.

18

18. By  wrongly  relying  on  the  letter  dated  30.12.2011 of  the

Government, in the impugned judgment, the High Court has held

that  graduate and non-graduate Promotee Assistants would be

considered as one single category along with Assistants and the

impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is

liable to be set aside.

19. In the result, the impugned judgement of the High Court is

set  aside  and  these  appeals  are  allowed  with  the  following

observations and directions:-

(i) Promotions of the Direct recruit Assistants effected between

07.02.1995  and  08.04.2009  and  their  seniority  in  their

respective positions as on date, shall not be disturbed;

(ii) The benefit extended to the graduate promotee Assistants

by placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants is to

be given effect to prospectively from the date of judgment

of this Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in the case of M.

Rathinaswami v. State of T.N.  reported in (2009) 5 SCC

625;

(iii) After  08.04.2009,  the  promotion  to  the  post  of  Deputy

Tahsildar  from  its  feeder  category,  i.e.,  Direct  recruit

Assistants  and  Promotee  graduate  Assistants,  shall  be

strictly  in  accordance  with  the  judgment  of  this  Court

referred  above,  i.e.,  treating  Promotee  graduate

Assistants  on  par  with  Direct  recruit  Assistants.   Such

19

promotion shall  be given effect  to,  without  reference to

any interim order(s) passed by the High Court;

(iv) If  any  panels  are  prepared,  and  promotions  are  given,

after 08.04.2009 for promoting the Assistants to the post

of Deputy Tahsildars in Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate

Service  contrary  to  the  judgment  of  this  Court  dated

08.04.2009,  such  panels  and  promotions  have  to  be

revised so as to bring in conformity with the judgment of

this Court referred above;

(v) By virtue of the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009,

referred above, Promotee graduate Assistants are placed

on par with Direct recruit Assistants.  So far as Promotee

non-graduate Assistants are concerned, the amended rule

holds the field, which gives preferential treatment to Direct

recruit  Assistants,  over  Promotee  non-graduate

Assistants;

(vi) Promotee non-graduate Assistants, who are impleaded as

party respondents in these appeals, are not entitled to any

directions in their favour, as much as, all these appeals

are preferred by Direct recruit Assistants;  

(vii) While implementing the above directions, if the seniority

and promotion, of the persons who are already retired or

dead,  is  affected  in  any  manner,  payments  made  on

account of such seniority and promotion earlier granted to

them during the interregnum period, i.e., from 08.04.2009

till this date shall not be recovered.

20

(viii) So  far  as  Promotee  non-graduate  Assistants  are

concerned,  it  is  open  for  them  to  pursue  with  the

Government for appropriate amendment to the Rules, in

which event we keep it open to Government to consider

such request on its own merits.

…....……………………….J.                [R. BANUMATHI]  

                            …...………………………..J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi; March 12, 2019

21