https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1730531838668800112?t=eW1rJsPNdjEaRl_5f6uOgQ&s=08 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have also fairly stated that the petitioners are not interested in termination of the respondents 3 to 18. Therefore, in order to give quietus to the issue, persons, who have been appointed as Junior Administrative Assistants and Office Assistants upto 31.10.2023 shall not be disturbed and their services shall be regularized depending upon their performance. We emphasize that the post of Office Assistant is not a feeder Category to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant. Considering the legitimate expectation of the persons like that of the petitioners, who have served in the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority / District & Taluk Legal Services Authority for quite a long time, the second respondent shall consider placing such persons in the next level, so as to enable them to get a better pay, subject to fulfilling service conditions, other criteria etc., purely on the basis of eligibility, suitability and seniority. We suggest that as an One Time measure, 16 vacancies, if any available, may be filled by way of transfer of service from Office Assistants to Junior Administrative Assistants. This order cannot be treated as precedent. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. We make it very clear that further appointments in the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority against sanctioned posts shall be only after advertisement / notification in the Official Website and as per the Rules, if any that are going to be framed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [S.V.N.,J.] [K.R.S.,J.] 03.11.2023 Internet: Yes / No Index: Yes/ No ar S.VAIDYANATHAN,J., AND K.RAJASEKAR,J., ar 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, St.Fort George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, North Fort Road, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. W.P.No.7087 of 2023 03.11.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN and
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W. P.No.7087 of 2023 and
W.M.P.Nos.7170 to 7172 and 7174 of 2023
1. A.J.Ethiraj
2. J.Manoj Kumar
3. S.Mohamed Ansari
4. S.Mehallan
5. S.Marimuthu
6. J.Rupan Kumar
7. V.Tamilsangili
8. K.Essakkiammal
9. J.Androse Yesudhas
10. K.Pradeep Kumar
11. S.Kodikathakumaran
12. P.Muniappan
13. R.Shenbagam
14. A.Ziaulhaq
15. S.Senthil Kumar …
Petitioners
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Law Department,
St.Fort George, Chennai-600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority,
Rep. by its Member Secretary, North Fort Road, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.
3. C.Kaviarasan
4. S.Jayalakshmi
5. P.Lokesh
6. Tmt.S.Maheswari
7. Thiru.S.Kumaresan
8. V.Mahesh
9. Tmt.M.Lathika
10. A.Vignesh Kumar
11. V.Senthil Kumar
12. B.Tarun Jain
13. Mohammed Ali
14. S.Arunkumar
15. M.Saranya
16. S.Sundaramoorthy
17. R.Shalini
18. R.Karuppusamy … Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorairifed Mandamus to call for the records in Order: TNSLSA No.8080/E/2022 dated 12.10.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and further direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel For Mr.M.Muruganantham
For R1 : Mr.A.Selvendran Spl.Govt.Pleader
For R2 : Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi
For R3 to 18 : No Appearance *****
O R D E R
(By.S.Vaidyanathan,J.,)
This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the appointment orders of the respondents 3 to 18 dated 12.10.2022 made by the second respondent in TNSLSA No.8080/E/2022 on temporary basis in the post of Junior
Administrative Assistants. The Petitioners also sought a direction to the second respondent to promote the petitioners to the post of Junior Administrative Assistants.
Brief facts in nutshell
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they joined the services of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority as Office Assistant on 23.04.2019 and after completion of one year period of service, they are entitled to be promoted as Junior Administrative Assistant. The petitioners have successfully completed the period of probation and the same was approved by the 2nd respondent.
2.1. It is further case of the petitioners that they, having served sufficient years of services, ought to have been posted as Junior Administrative Assistant, which is a promotional post. However, to the shock and surmise, the second respondent has filled the post of Junior Administrative Assistant without following any procedures. According to them, though a seniority list has been prepared for promoting the eligible Office Assistants to the post of Junior
Administrative Assistant, without taking any steps to fill up the post of Junior Administrative Assistant from the panel, the second respondent had chosen to appoint 16 Junior Administrative Assistants, who are arrayed as respondents herein, which is contrary to the selection process.
2.2. According to the petitioners, it is mandatory to effect paper publication in a local language, which is absent in the selection of 16 Junior Administrative Assistants and therefore, the appointment itself can be construed as a clear back door entry. They have put in 3 years of service as Office Assistants and they may be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant. Since the appointment of 16 Junior Administrative Assistants has been made without following the procedures, the petitioners have lost the right to promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant. Hence, it was vehemently pleaded that the orders of appointment issued by the second respondent to the respondents 3 to 18 is illegal and is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same needs interference by this Court.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter. However, Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has strenuously contended that in exercise of powers under Sub Section 5 of Section 6 and Sub Section (5) of Section 9 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987 r/w Sub Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu District Legal Services
Authority Rules, 1997, the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice / Patron-in-Chief and the Hon’ble Executive Chairman of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority have provisionally ordered the appointment of the respondents 3 to 18 as Junior
Administrative Assistants in the existing vacancy in the Pay Band of Rs.19,50062,000/- with all admissible allowances.
3.1. The averment made by the petitioners that they are eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant is not correct and even as per the seniority list produced by the petitioners in the typeset of papers, there were several persons, who were appointed prior to these petitioner and without considering their names for promotion, the petitioners cannot be straightaway granted promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant merely because they have approached this Court. Moreover, the post of Junior Administrative
Assistant is not a promotional post and the selection to the post of Office Assistant in the services of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority is by way of direct recruitment.
3.2. Learned counsel for the second respondent has further contended that since the contesting respondents were found to be qualified and suitable in terms of the Act r/w Rules, on the recommendation of the Executive Chairman, the Patron-in-Chief, they were temporarily appointed as Junior Assistants. Earlier they were engaged on consolidated basis in contingent pay There is no separate
Rule governing the service conditions of the staff of Tamil Nadu State Legal
Services Authority and they are governed by the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial
Service Rules, which is evident from Rule 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1997. Therefore, it was argued that there was no violation of any of the provisions by the second respondent and the appointment made to the respondents 3 to 18 cannot be termed to be illegal and the Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though thepetitioners are not interested in ousting the respondents 3 to 18 and other employees, who are working under the control of the second respondent for very long years, the only grievance of the petitioners is that their names should not be let down from the purview of promotion to the next level pursuant to the appointment made to the respondents 3 to 18 and other persons and their case should also be considered for promoting them as Junior Administrative Assistant.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Special
Government Pleader for R1 and the learned counsel for R2.
6. A circumspection of the facts and averments unravels that the petitioners were appointed as Office Assistant way back in the year 2019 and their apprehension is that if the services of the directly recruited Junior Administrative Assistants were regularized prior to the regularization of their services in the post of Office Assistants, their chances of getting promotion would be bleak.One thing we want to clarify that the post of Office Assistant is not the feeder category to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant and merely because they were selected and appointed as Office Assistant in the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services
Authority, it cannot be said that they are directly eligible to the post of Junior
Administrative Assistant. We feel it appropriate to extract Rule 13(2) of the Tamil
Nadu State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1997 as under:
“13(2) The Officers and other employees of the State Authority shall be governed by the rules and regulations as are applicable to persons holding equivalent posts in the Judicial Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu.”
7. In Tamil Nadu, the services of Office Assistants are governed by Class III Category 5 of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules and their services will not fall in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules and the Office Assistants cannot be simply placed as Junior Administrative Assistants, which is just a transfer of service. The post of Junior Administrative Assistant is equivalent to the post of Junior Assistant in the Judicial Department, for which, the post of Junior Bailiff, Reader / Examiner, Record Clerk and the like is the categories eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and those feeder categories are alone eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant. In judicial service, the Office Assistants will be posted in the categories of Record Clerk, Reader / Examiner, Junior Bailiff and only thereafter, they would be considered for the post of Junior Assistant. Since such feeder categories are not available in the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, some of the Office Assistants have been posted as Junior Administrative Assistants, considering their long services rendered by them. It is worth to point out for the sake of argument that in case the petitioners are transferred to Lower Courts, they cannot make such a demand that they can be posted only as Junior Assistant irrespective of existence of provisions / Rules.
8. That apart, it cannot be said that the respondents 3 to 18 are appointed through back door and before appointing them temporarily as Junior
Administrative Assistant, they worked in the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authority as Consolidated Staff for longer period under the aegis of NALSA and costs of the TNSLSA. It is pertinent to mention here that the intent of legislation in constitution of Legal Services Authority is to serve for the poor litigant and public and without sufficient manpower, the mission cannot be achieved. Therefore, Tamil Nadu State Legal
Services Authority under the guidance of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), New Delhi and from the funds allotted for the said purpose have utilized the services of persons on temporary basis on payment of meager amount.

9. In the absence of Rules, the plea of the petitioners cannot be granted and it is for the concerned Committee to take a decision in respect of framing of Rules so as to govern them under the a separate Rules instead of following the Rules governing the service conditions of Judicial Department.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have also fairly stated that the petitioners are not interested in termination of the respondents 3 to 18. Therefore, in order to give quietus to the issue, persons, who have been appointed as Junior Administrative Assistants and Office Assistants upto 31.10.2023 shall not be disturbed and their services shall be regularized depending upon their performance. We emphasize that the post of Office Assistant is not a feeder Category to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant. Considering the legitimate expectation of the persons like that of the petitioners, who have served in the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority / District & Taluk Legal Services Authority for quite a long time, the second respondent shall consider placing such persons in the next level, so as to enable them to get a better pay, subject to fulfilling service conditions, other criteria etc., purely on the basis of eligibility, suitability and seniority. We suggest that as an One Time measure, 16 vacancies, if any available, may be filled by way of transfer of service from Office Assistants to Junior Administrative Assistants. This order cannot be treated as precedent.
With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. We make it very clear that further appointments in the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority against sanctioned posts shall be only after advertisement / notification in the Official Website and as per the Rules, if any that are going to be framed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [K.R.S.,J.]
03.11.2023
Internet: Yes / No Index: Yes/ No ar
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.,
ar
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, St.Fort George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, North Fort Road, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.
W.P.No.7087 of 2023
03.11.2023