HC declares as unconstitutional portions of Govt. Servants Act
‘Roster system for reservation in appointment cannot be followed for seniority’
16/11/2019 , Mohamed Imranullah S., CHENNAI
The Madras High Court on Friday declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act of 2016 and held that the 200-point roster system followed in the State for providing reservation in recruitment could not be followed for fixing seniority and granting promotions.
Justices M.M. Sundresh and RMT. Teekaa Raman held that the seniority should be fixed based on merit alone and not on the basis of roster points since otherwise it would lead to a less meritorious reserved category candidate getting ahead of a meritorious backward class candidate who had got selected under the general category. The judges declared as unconstitutional Sections 1(2), 40 and 70 of the 2016 Act since they not only prescribe determination of seniority in accordance with the rule of reservation followed at the time of their recruitment but also give a “retroactive” and not just restrospective effect to such a procedure by stating that it shall be deemed to have come into force from January 1, 1955.
“We find the presence of manifest arbitrariness in the provisions under challenge. Neither there appears to be any power available (to enact the legal provisions) nor procedure followed. This appears to be a knee jerk reaction to circumvent and nullify the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Santhosh Kumar case (2015) which had attained finality,” the judges said.
Authoring the verdict, Justice Sundresh also said, “We do not find any fairness in action on the part of the official respondents. A ‘Welfare State’ will have to keep in mind the interest and one and all. Any action of the State should be a balancing one and therefore, a basic rational approach is required. Unfortunately, the distributory justice appears to be missing.”
He pointed out that another Division Bench led by Justice V. Ramasubramanian, now a Supreme Court judge, had in 2015 dealt with the same issue in detail and ruled against following the roster system for fixing seniority. To circumvent that decision, the government had inserted the provisions under challenge in the 2016 Act and it is nothing but “legislative arbitrariness,” he added.
After declaring the provisions as unconstitutional, the judges directed the government to redraw the seniority as per the present judgment within 12 weeks.
‘Roster system for reservation in appointment cannot be followed for seniority’
16/11/2019 , Mohamed Imranullah S., CHENNAI
The Madras High Court on Friday declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act of 2016 and held that the 200-point roster system followed in the State for providing reservation in recruitment could not be followed for fixing seniority and granting promotions.
Justices M.M. Sundresh and RMT. Teekaa Raman held that the seniority should be fixed based on merit alone and not on the basis of roster points since otherwise it would lead to a less meritorious reserved category candidate getting ahead of a meritorious backward class candidate who had got selected under the general category. The judges declared as unconstitutional Sections 1(2), 40 and 70 of the 2016 Act since they not only prescribe determination of seniority in accordance with the rule of reservation followed at the time of their recruitment but also give a “retroactive” and not just restrospective effect to such a procedure by stating that it shall be deemed to have come into force from January 1, 1955.
“We find the presence of manifest arbitrariness in the provisions under challenge. Neither there appears to be any power available (to enact the legal provisions) nor procedure followed. This appears to be a knee jerk reaction to circumvent and nullify the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Santhosh Kumar case (2015) which had attained finality,” the judges said.
Authoring the verdict, Justice Sundresh also said, “We do not find any fairness in action on the part of the official respondents. A ‘Welfare State’ will have to keep in mind the interest and one and all. Any action of the State should be a balancing one and therefore, a basic rational approach is required. Unfortunately, the distributory justice appears to be missing.”
He pointed out that another Division Bench led by Justice V. Ramasubramanian, now a Supreme Court judge, had in 2015 dealt with the same issue in detail and ruled against following the roster system for fixing seniority. To circumvent that decision, the government had inserted the provisions under challenge in the 2016 Act and it is nothing but “legislative arbitrariness,” he added.
After declaring the provisions as unconstitutional, the judges directed the government to redraw the seniority as per the present judgment within 12 weeks.