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.