20.03.

2023
Gingee
From
L.PAVITHRA,
DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER,
GINGEE ASSESSMENT CIRCLE,
VELLORE DIVISION,
VELLORE.

Permanent address:
1/30 Gangaiamman Kovil Street
Sernthanur Village
Villupuram District -605103

To

(1) The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600005.

(2) The Secretary to Government

Commercial Taxes and Registration Department
Secretariat , Chennai- 600009.

(Advance Copy)
Respected Sir,
Sub: CT Department – Request to follow TNCT Subordinate service rule 2(b)
(I) –Release inter seniority list - promotion as STO – By Direct recruit
DCTOs – Representation– Reg.
Ref: 1. Orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.12786 dated
19.06.1985.
2. Orders of the Hon'ble SC in C.A.No.1454 of 1987, dated:
10.02.1999.
3. Orders of the Hon'ble SC in CP. No.263 of 2007 in C.A.No. 1454
of 1987, dated: 04.03.2009.
4. Orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No 10154 of
2021, dated: 29.11.2020.
5. Proceedings of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in
CP3/1076204/2021, dated 15.02.2022.
6. G.O.(Ms) No. 20, Commercial Taxes and Registration (A2)
Department , Dated: 09.03.2023.

1. I respectfully submit that the Honorable High Court of Madras, through an order
passed in the reference 1st cited, established four principles for determining seniority
in the cadre of the then Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. The Court directed the
Official respondents to determine seniority based on the availability of substantive
vacancies within the permanent cadre strength allotted to the particular category, i.e.,
direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer."

1
2. However, the State has filed an appeal before the Honorable Supreme Court and has
raised an objection to the use of the term "permanent cadre strength" in the High
Court judgment cited as reference 1. The State has contended that the cadre comprises
not only permanent posts but also temporary posts, and persons appointed to such
temporary posts prior to the appointment of the direct recruits may also be considered
for the purpose of fixing seniority, and should not be omitted from consideration.
3. However, the State's contention was rejected, and the Honorable Supreme Court
affirmed the order passed by the Honorable High Court in reference 1, through an
order passed in the cited reference."
4. "As the seniority of ten direct recruit DCTOs was not fixed in accordance with the
principles established by the Honorable High Court and affirmed by the Honorable
Supreme Court, they filed a contempt petition before the Honorable Supreme Court.
By an order dated 20.10.2008 and 04.03.2009, the Honorable Apex Court directed the
Official respondents to fix the seniority in accordance with their order dated
10.02.1999 passed in C.A.No.1454 of 1987.
5. Subsequently, as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court, the Official respondents
filed a seniority list dated 01.12.2008 and submitted it to the Honorable Supreme
Court. The Direct recruit ACTOs filed an affidavit stating that their grievance, except
for the seniority of the 10th petitioner, had been addressed, and they did not wish to
pursue the contempt petition any further. Based on the affidavit and assurance given
by the Official respondents that the consequential benefits of the petitioners would be
given within four months, the contempt petition was closed through an order passed in
the reference cited as 3.
6. The seniority of the then ACTO category was confirmed by the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes through proceedings issued in P1/58439/2007, dated 04.05.2009.
A writ petition was filed challenging the seniority, but it was dismissed through an
order passed in W.P.No.11618 of 2009, dated 06.04.2011. Consequently, the seniority
for all cadres was finalized, and promotions were carried out based on that seniority
list.
7. However, following a representation from vested interest groups, a high-level
committee was constituted through GO (D) No.132 dated 31.05.2015, to study the
issue of inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and transferees in the
Commercial Taxes Department. The committee was tasked with making suggestions
for resolving the issue, which included filing a Curative Petition before the Honorable
Supreme Court of India.

2
8. Due to pressure exerted by vested interest groups, a committee was constituted to
revise the seniority list, consisting only of members from said groups. We objected to
the composition of the committee, as no representation was given to Group-II officers,
and our objection was not considered. The irony is that the seniority list was prepared
in complete disregard of the direction given by the Honorable High Court and the
Honorable Supreme Court that seniority should be fixed with reference to the
availability of substantive vacancies within the permanent cadre strength allotted to
the particular category. The seniority list was designed in such a way that none of the
officers recruited through Group-II services could reach higher positions in the
department. Therefore, the revision appeared to be an attempt to shape or cut the foot
to fit the shoe, rather than the other way around.
9. Upon realizing that the aforementioned illegal seniority was submitted to the
government in order to nullify and weaken the directives issued by the highest court,
three officers from Group-II initiated legal action by filing a writ petition and
obtained a temporary injunction that prohibited the official respondents from
implementing the list. Subsequently, by virtue of the ruling delivered on 27.02.2020
in W.P.No.9257 of 2018, the writ was granted, and as a result, the seniority list that
purportedly was prepared based on the directives of the High-Level Committee and
forwarded to the government in CP-03/10594/2018 dated 13-04-2018 was invalidated
by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
10. However, a vested interest group filed an appeal in W.A.No.626 of 2020, challenging
the common order dated 27.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.9257 of 2018. The appeal was
disposed of by order dated 05.11.2020, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Madras
once again reaffirmed that the State Government should prepare the seniority list by
considering only permanent posts in accordance with applicable general and special
rules, and the four principles adopted by the Division Bench of the Court, which were
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 10.02.1999 in C.A. No.1454
of 1987.
11. The noteworthy point that requires attention is the observations made by the Hon’ble
High Court in paragraph 20 of the judgment pronounced in W.A.No.626 of 2020,
wherein it was noted that “an attempt was made to construe the aforementioned
Supreme Court judgment in such a manner that temporary posts were not considered
irregular. Additionally, we observe that the High Power Committee, during its
meeting on 23.02.2018, resolved to revise the seniority list according to the additional
counter affidavit filed in W.A. No.2280 of 2016”. Therefore, it has been conclusively

3
 established that temporary posts were also taken into account while determining
seniority, thereby contravening the ratio of the verdicts given by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras in W.P.No.12786 of 1985, affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in its order passed in C.A.No.1454 of 1987 on 10.02.1999, and the interim order
passed in Contempt Petition No.263 of 2007 on 20.10.2018.
12. It is pertinent to note that the seniority list, which was prepared by the vested interest
group and communicated to the government through CP-03/10594/2018 dated 13-04-
2018, covered only the period between 2007 and 2015. The list failed to indicate who
had been appointed to the substantive vacancies within the permanent cadre and who
had been appointed to vacancies within the temporary cadre. Furthermore, the
seniority list was prepared only for those who were in service in 2007 and thereafter,
and objections were not sought from the stakeholders. It is evident that the seniority
list communicated to the Government in CP-03/10594/2018 dated 13-04-2018 was
created contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. We submit that copies of the seniority lists prepared in accordance with the order
issued in W.A.226 of 2020 and W.P.No.10154 of 2021 were either published or
shared in electronic format among the concerned parties, providing them with an
opportunity to file objections. Upon perusal of the seniority lists, it is evident that the
substantive vacancies were estimated and a demarcation was made between
appointments to permanent and temporary posts. Although there may be some errors
in the seniority lists, as pointed out in our objections, we maintain that transparency
has been maintained, and the representation of influential groups has been prevented
from preparing a customised seniority.
14. In light of the unequivocal findings of both the single bench and Division bench of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras, which have explicitly stated that an effort was made
to formulate the seniority list by incorporating individuals appointed to temporary
posts, we respectfully assert that the seniority list communicated to the Government in
CP-03/10594/2018 dated 13-04-2018 is invalid and cannot be implemented. It is
evident that the said list was created with the intention of fitting square pegs into
round holes, thereby flouting the principles enunciated by the competent High Court
and ratified by the Supreme Court.
15. We submit that despite the filing of Special Leave Petitions by a few transferees
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no stay or interim injunction has been granted to
restrain the Official Respondent from following the principles formulated by the
Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.12786 of 1985, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

4
 Court in C.A.No.1454 of 1987, and Contempt Petition No.263 of 2007. Therefore,
promotion or recruitment by transfer can only be made from the seniority lists
published or communicated in pursuance of the order dated 05.11.2020 passed in
W.A.No.226 of 2020 and the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in WP No.10154. Mere
filing of a Special Leave Petition cannot be a reason for not following the direction
already issued in the earlier round of litigation.

In light of the foregoing submissions, we request that the inter-seniority list be

regularized and that we (Direct Recruitment (2018-19) Deputy State Tax Officer
Batch) be included as per TNCT Subordinate Rule 2(b)(i), which reserves 33 1/3% of
the posts for direct DCTOs. As reference 6, we cite G.O.(Ms) No .20 dated 09-03-2023,
which proposes filling 160 CTO posts and all existing vacant CTO posts on the basis of
the seniority lists published in CP3/1076204/2021, dated 15.02.2022, and effecting
promotion/recruitment by transfer to all other cadres based on the seniority lists
published in CP3/1076204/2021, dated 15.02.2022.
We humbly request that the respected Commissioner consider our submission
regarding the former PS/CCT Thiru.M.A.Siddique,I.A.S's transparent approach in
adopting the principles and guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We appreciate that
the methodology, estimation of vacancies, and panels for each year, along with the draft
interstate seniority list, were released to officials, who were given the opportunity to
provide their opinion. Furthermore, we acknowledge that representations/objections were
invited from all cadres, ensuring natural justice. It is worth mentioning that the respected
former PS/CCT Thiru.Phanindra Reddy I.A.S also improved the officially communicated
draft interstate seniority list and informally shared it with all associations. Equally,
representations were received from all cadres. However, we have learned that there are
attempts being made to undo the efforts taken by the two respected former
Commissioners by involving persons with vested interests in the seniority issue. In light
of this, we respectfully request that the respected Commissioner involve members from
all factions, including Directly Recruited (Group-II), Promotees, and Members from
CCT, to uphold the principles of fair play, equity, and justice for all cadres involved.
Thanking You
Yours Sincerely

(L.PAVITHRA)