WP/18166/2017 of K.P.Thirumalai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 30 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) This batch of writ petitions have been instituted challenging the 6th proviso to Annexure III of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules relating to the post of Deputy Tahsildar requiring five years of service as Assistant for direct recruit Assistants for inclusion of the petitioners' names in the list of eligible approved candidates for the post of Deputy Tahsildar is unconstitutional and null and void.

2. The post of Assistant in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service is filled through two modes, one by direct recruitment and another by way of promotion from the feeder category of Junior Assistants. The next avenue for promotion to the post of Assistant is Deputy Tahsildar in the Revenue Department. Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules contemplates the experience required for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar since the said post requires performance of special duties in Revenue Department. Sixth proviso to Annexure 3 of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, which is impugned in these writ petitions reads as under: “ Provided also that an Assistant appointed by direct recruitment in the Office of the Board of Revenue shall be eligible for inclusion of his name in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars for Madras City, on competitive basis, after completion of a total service of five years, if he has passed all the prescribed tests and undergone training as Firkha Revenue Inspector for two years successfully and is otherwise qualified.”

3. No doubt. as per the arguments advanced by Mr.Palani Selvaraj on behalf of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.21806 of 2017, difference service experiences have been prescribed for the promotees as well as to the direct recruits. In the present case, five years of experience in the post of Assistant has been prescribed for directly recruited Assistants and four years of experience has been prescribed for the Promotees. The petitioners would contend that prescribing 4 years and 5 years experience for the employees working in the cadre of Assistant is discriminatory.

4. In this regard, Mr.Palani Selvaraj would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.K.Ponnusamy -vs- Government of Tamil Nadu and Others1.

5. This Court has considered the facts relating to the said judgment, in which the post of District Revenue Officers in comparison with Deputy Collectors was dealt with. Therefore, the facts are not similar. Question arises whether a comparison can be made regarding the prescription of educational qualifications and experience for promotion to a particular post in 1 (1994) Supplementary 3 SCC 376

Government departments.

6. Prescription of educational qualification, age criteria, experience etc., are the prerogative of the Government and its policy decision. Such prescription can be questioned only if the same violates any of the provisions of the State or ultravires to the Constitution. In the present case, the only ground raised is discrimination. However, the basis for prescribing 5 years experience for directly recruited Assistants and 4 years experience for Promotee Assistants has been set out in its counter as under: " 5) With regard to the averments made in Para 4 and 5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner himself admitted the fact that 8 years of service as Junior Assistant / Assistant is required for a promotee Assistant for being included in the Deputy Tahsildar Panel, in which four year service is to be in Assistant Cadre as per Rule 7(a) read with Annexure III of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service. The eight years period is inclusive of Foundation Training at the Civil Service Training Institute, Bhavanisagar and Survey and Maintenance training. As such the 5 years period for directly recruited Assistant is inclusive of clerical training, Foundation Training at Bhavanisagar and Survey and Maintenance Training. The post of Deputy Tahsildar is coming under Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service which carries much higher responsibilities including redressal of public grievances. Hence, adequate training and service experience is required for getting adequate knowledge in Revenue Department field work for holding the post of Deputy Tahsildar. With an intention to make a Directly Recruited Assistant fully qualified to hold the post of Deputy Tahsildar, a schedule of training for a period of 5 years is prescribed in Rule 38(b)(ii) in Annexure-IX-A of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. The Promotee Assistant has to serve 8 years to qualify for the post of Deputy Tahsildar, whereas the Directly Recruited Assistant has to undergo training for only 5 years. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that 6th proviso in Annexure III of Rule 7(a) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution is totally wrong and unacceptable.

6) It is also submitted that a Junior Assistant appointed in the Revenue Department should complete eight years of service for consideration of his name for inclusion in the panel of Deputy Tahsildar. The 6th proviso in Annexure III of Special Rules 7(a) of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Services prescribes completion of 5 years period for Directly Recruited Assistants for becoming eligible for inclusion of their name in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar. In the five year service, the directly recruited Assistant has to undergo the following trainings.

1. Clerical Training

- 1 month

2. Foundational Training at Bhavanisagar – 2 months

3. Working as Assistant in the Taluk Office - 1 year

4. Training in Survey and Maintenance

- 1 month

5. Training as Firkha Revenue Inspector

- 2 years

6. Serving as Assistant in any Revenue Office

- 1 year 8 months The five years tenure (4 month training + 2 years 8 months Assistant + 2 years Firka Revenue Inspector) is prescribed to make them have more exposure to the departmental subjects. Of the five years, only 2 years and 8 months service is required to be rendered by the directly recruited Assistants in clerical capacity. Whereas the Promotee Assistants are working for a period of not less than 6 years in clerical cadre. Therefore, Directly Recruited Assistants cannot be compared with Promotee Assistants as both of them are from separate streams of recruitment. Hence, the 6th proviso rulings are found just and necessary.”

7. A close reading of the reasons would show that the promotee Assistants have already served as Junior Assistants in the Department and acquired experience. However, the directly recruited Assistants do not possess such experience. Therefore, one year concession has been extended to the promotee Assistants for further promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The concession of one year extended to the promotee Assistants for the reason that they have already served in the same department in the post of Junior Assistants in the Ministerial Service and acquired experience. The difference is to be construed as intelligible differentia and the said concession cannot be construed as unreasonable.

8. In Paragraph 6 of the counter, the reasons for prescribing five years experience for directly recruited Assistants also have been narrated categorically. Therefore, the Government has not prescribed five years of experience for directly recruited Assistants blind foldedly, but considered various aspects and the necessary experience for performing the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in an effective manner.

9. Courts have time and again reiterated that prescription of qualification is the prerogative of the employer. The arms of the powers of judicial review cannot be extended to strike down those qualifications which all are essential for better performance of the duties and responsibilities attached to a particular post.

10. In the case of Md.Firoz Mansuri vs. The State of Bihar2 , the Apex Court held as follows: 22026 SCC OnLine SC 88

“

56. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission (supra) reiterated that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Question of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same.

57. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and suitability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the employer. 58. In Uneet Sharma & Ors. v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Anr., (2021) 16 SCC 340, the issue was whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering is a technically higher qualification than a diploma in that discipline and whether degree-holders would be eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment rules. The Supreme Court took into consideration the decisions in Jyoti KK (supra), Anita (supra), Zahoor Ahmed (supra) and observed that these were quite different from the facts of this case and permitted degree- holders to apply only because the recruitment rules themselves contemplated such inclusion through express sub- quotas. The Court also relied on a subsequent amendment to the rules declaring that those with higher qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for appointment, and thus, allowed the degree holders also to participate.”

11. That apart, promotee Assistants and directly recruited Assistants, though serve in the same cadre, cannot be treated as equals. They are to be treated equals only for further promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildars. Regarding prescription of experience, concession has been extended to promotee Assistants which cannot be construed as baseless. Therefore, after becoming an Assistant and while considering the names of the Assistants for further promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, experience prescribed for directly recruited Assistants and promotee Assistants are to be followed. The very basis for challenge is unacceptable. In view of the fact that promotee Assistants cannot be equated with directly recruited Assistants for the simple reason that the promotee Assistants have already served in the Revenue Department and acquired knowledge and experience which resulted in extending one year concession to the promotee Assistants for further promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, which cannot be construed as ultravires to the Constitution. The reasons stated by the Government for extending concession to the promotee Assistants is based on the experience already acquired by them in the feeder category of Junior Assistants which cannot be brushed aside and the benefit granted is well reasoned and deserves no further interference.

12. That apart, directly recruited Assistants as a class is not discriminated. Therefore, the grounds raised in the writ petitions are devoid of merits and consequently all the above writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KST Note : Registry to type the causetitle for all the cases To

1. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.

2. The Secretary to Government Tamil Nadu Personal and Administrative Reforms, Chennai-09

3. The Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Chennai-5

4. The District Collector Vellore District, Vellore

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KST WP No. 18166 of 2017 30-09-2026