Petitioner held not qualified for the post.

The parties to the lis and the subject matter of dispute are inter-linked and therefore, by consent of both parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final hearing.

2. First I will take up W.P. No.372 of 1996. This writ petition was filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in Ref.P/DPC dated 11. 1995 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Traffic Supervisor with effect from 210. 1992.

3. The facts leading to the filing of W.P. No.372 of 1996, as found in the supporting affidavit filed, are as follows: The petitioner was working as Tourist driver from 1. 1970 in the India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) at its Regional Office at Madras. He has been sincerely and efficiently discharging his duties without any blemish or black mark. As per the settlement dated 14. 1985 arrived at before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, the petitioner was appointed as Selection Grade driver retrospectively from 4. 1973. The 1st respondent by his order dated 14. 1989 posted the petitioner as counter-assistant and the same was confirmed by order dated 5. 1989 and he was directed to work under an Assistant Manager (Travels) in the Travel Agency Wing.

.4. According to the petitioner, he underwent special training in Travel Agency Wing. He was working as counter-assistant in the Corporation since 1989. According to the rules governing the promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Supervisor, the qualification is that the counter-assistant has to undergo three years travel trade experience. Even though the petitioner possesses the qualification for promotion to the abovesaid post, his name was not considered for promotion as Assistant Traffic Supervisor, though four vacancies arose during 1992 by the resignation of one Mr.Raghunathan, by the death of one Mr.Chandrasekar, by the dismissal of one Mr.Rajendran and by promotion of one Mr.Sankaranarayanan. Further, two of his juniors working in the cadre of counter-assistant viz., V.D. Rajan and A.Akhil Kumar were promoted by order dated 210. 1992 of the Assistant Manager (Personnel). Further, one G.Jayakumar, the petitioner’s another junior, was also promoted on his voluntary request and transferred to Madras during 1993.

5. The petitioner submits that in spite of his requisite qualification, he was not considered for promotion and that he was victimized for his union activities as General Secretary, All India Tourism Development Corporation Employees Union, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner made several representations to the Corporation to consider his name for promotion, but the Corporation remained silent without any response. While so, to the utter shock of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued an order dated 11. 1995 referring the petitioner as driver Grade I (Senior driver) and presently discharging the duties of counter-assistant, and promoting him with the same designation to C.D.A. pattern of pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 with effect from 110. 1995. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal, void and is without jurisdiction. The petitioner has been working as counter-assistant for the past six years and as per the rules governing promotion, he should have been promoted as Assistant Traffic Supervisor in the year 1992 itself i. e., on 210. 1992, the date on which his juniors were promoted. It is submitted that the Corporation has changed his existing service conditions in the guise of promotion. The impugned order is an order of reversion in the guise of promotion, which is contrary to the provisions governing promotion. The aforesaid act of the Corporation without following the procedures prescribed in Sec.9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, invalid and against the principles of natural justice. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that since the original impugned order is mispla