SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 1396

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
A. Francis
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Govt.,
W.A. No.755 of 2007
Decided on : 28-04-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel, D. Sukumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R2 to R4, B. Shanthakumar, Advocate, R1, S. Gopinathan, AGP.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of vast experience for promotion, the interpretation of the Board's power to relax regulations, and the application of Regulation 6-B in exceptional cases.

Headnote:

Regulation - Promotion - Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Special Regulations, 1982 - The court discussed the application of Regulation 6-B, which empowers the Board to relax any of the special regulations in exceptional cases. The judgment highlighted the issue of relaxation of educational qualifications for promotion and the interpretation of the Board's power to relax the regulations. The court's decision emphasized the need to consider the vast experience of the appellant and set aside the order of the single Judge, directing the Board to exercise its power under Regulation 6-B to relax the professional qualification for promotion.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought regular promotion as Deputy Controller of Finance, claiming vast experience in the Accounts Department of the Board and citing instances of relaxation of regulations for other employees. The Board rejected the request based on lack of educational qualification.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's vast experience in the promotional post warranted consideration for promotion, despite lacking the prescribed educational qualification. It set aside the single Judge's order and directed the Board to relax the professional qualification for promotion.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the relaxation of educational qualifications for promotion, the Board's utilization of the appellant's experience, and the interpretation of Regulation 6-B of the Special Regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider the appellant's extensive experience and the Board's power to relax regulations in exceptional cases, leading to the decision to set aside the rejection of the promotion and direct the Board to exercise its power under Regulation 6-B.

Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, and the consequential resolution passed by the Board was set aside with a direction to the Board to relax the professional qualification and issue the promotional order to the appellant.

Judgment :-

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

The writ appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 24. 2007 in W.P.No.43454 of 2006.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner/appellant for regular promotion as Deputy Controller of Finance against the existing vacancy in the Internal Audit Wing with due modification and relaxation of Regulations of the respondent.

4. The case of the writ petitioner/appellant is that he was appointed in the services of the Adhoc Board of the first respondent as Accounts Superintendent on 14. 1978 and subsequently re-designated as Junior Accounts Officer after the formation of the Board. Thereafter, he was promoted as Accounts Officer in June, 1982 and then as Senior Accounts Officer on 112. 1985 and he continued to serve as Senior Accounts Officer and completed 22 years of service. Thereafter, he was posted and functioning as Deputy Controller of Finance (in-charge) w.e.f. 211. 2004 without any monetary benefit attached to the post. Therefore, he claims that since he was functioning as Deputy Controller of Finance (in-charge), he is entitled for promotion to the above said post. However, the Special Regulations of the Board introduced w.e.f. 8. 1982 favour only professionals, viz., ICWA/CA/MBA. The said Special Regulations of the Board prescribing various qualifications for various posts were framed during the infant stage of the Board and they have to be modified taking into consideration the prevailing regulations in other establishments.

5. The further case of the petitioner/appellant is that the professionals who were recruited in the Board have not completed their full period of service and they had voluntarily retired on completion of 20 years of their service. They are, V. Venkateswaran, Chief Controller of Finance, R.Sathiaseelan, Financial Analyst and Kamaraj, Controller of Finance (Internal Audit). It is further submitted that though his representation was not considered, the cases of some other employees who were not qualified for promotion and who made representations to upgrade their post were considered by the Board. The details of the same are given hereunder:

Sl.No. Date Particulars

1

1/9/2005

D.Narasimha Reddy, Industrial Relation Manager – Upgraded as Deputy General Manager

2

1/3/2006

V.K. Suresh Kumar, Assistant Public Relations Officer – Upgraded as Deputy Public Relations Manager

3

4/6/2007

S.Gunasekaran, IFO – Temporarily promoted as Manger (Customer Care) Regulation 6-B of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Special Regulations, 1982 empowers the Board to relax any of the special regulations in exceptional cases. However, the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant is that same was not done in his favour, while exercising it in favour of other persons mentioned above.

6. It is pertinent to note that at one point of time, the Board has taken into consideration the petitioners seniority, his work experience and past service record and thereafter initiated proposals vide its order dated 8. 1998 by constituting a Committee on Personnel Management Issues and recommended the petitioners name for promotion as Deputy Internal Auditor in Grade-IV from the post of Senior Accounts Officer on the ground of his stagnation in the same post/cadre for more than 13 years on account of not possessing professional qualification. His name was also recommended for further promotion and the Managing Director, Metro Water, vide his note dated 24. 2003, considering his stagnation in the post of Senior Accounts Officer for 18 years, has recommended him for promotion by relaxing the professional qualification prescribed before the Personnel Committee and approved upgradation to the post of Deputy Controller of Finance. It is further submitted













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top