Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2049
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
D. Panner Selvam
Versus
The Chief Engineer, Agriculture Engineering
Writ Petition No.15145 of 2006, (O.A.No.5502 of 1995)
Decided on : 27-06-2008
For the Petitioner:Dhanalakshmi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T. Sreenivasan, Government Advocate.
The subsequent re-promotion of the petitioner influenced the court's decision, leading to the conclusion that no further orders were required to be passed in the writ petition.
Headnote:
Promotion - Reversion - Employment Law - The court considered the case of the petitioner who was reverted from the post of Agricultural Engineering Foreman to that of Assistant Agricultural Engineering Foreman due to want of vacancy. The court found that the petitioner was re-promoted to Agricultural Engineering Foreman subsequently, and therefore, no further orders were required to be passed in the writ petition. The petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the respondent with regard to any amounts due, and the respondent was open to pass appropriate orders thereon.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was reverted from the post of Agricultural Engineering Foreman to that of Assistant Agricultural Engineering Foreman due to want of vacancy. The petitioner was subsequently re-promoted to Agricultural Engineering Foreman.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no further orders were required to be passed in the writ petition. The petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the respondent with regard to any amounts due, and the respondent was open to pass appropriate orders thereon.
Issues: Reversion from higher post to lower post due to want of vacancy, subsequent re-promotion, relief sought by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the subsequent re-promotion of the petitioner to the higher post, leading to the conclusion that no further orders were required to be passed in the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was closed as no further orders were required to be passed. The petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the respondent with regard to any amounts due, and the respondent was open to pass appropriate orders thereon.
The petitioner has filed the writ petition to call for the records and to quash the order passed by the respondent, in reference number May.pa.3/70930/93-2, dated 9. 94, reverting the petitioner from the post of Agricultural Engineering Foreman to that of Assistant Agricultural Engineering Foreman, for want of vacancy.
2. It has been stated by the petitioner that he was appointed as an Assistant Driller in the year 1984 and he was promoted as an Assistant Agricultural Engineering Foreman, with effect from 16. 92. In the year 1993, a temporary panel for promotion to the post of Agricultural Engineering Foreman was drawn and the name of the petitioner was found at Rank No.4. Based on the said panel, the petitioner was promoted as an Agricultural Engineering Foreman, by an order, dated 30.7.1993. Though, the name of the petitioner was also found in the regular panel, dated 23. 94, by an order of the first respondent, dated 9. 94, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Agricultural Engineering Foreman to that of Assistant Agricultural Engineering Foreman, due to want of vacancy.
3. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had placed before this Court, a communication sent by the respondent, in Letter No.LC.1/38505/2008, dated 26.06.2008, which is as follows:
"In continuation of the reference cited, I wish to state that Thiru.D.Pannerselvam, the petitioner was reverted as Assistant Agricultural Engineering Foreman for want of vacancy in the post of Agricultural Engineering foreman. Subsequently, he was re-promoted to Agricultural Engineering foreman vide this office reference Proc.No.EEP.1/32294/95, dated 111. 1995 and Proc.No.EE.3/105123/95, dated 20.11.1995."
4. In view of the said communication, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition with regard to the promotion of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent with regard to the amounts due to the petitioner, if any, with regard to the relief’s sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition.
5. On such submissions being made, the writ petition is closed as no further orders are required to be passed. However, the petitioner is permitted to make such a representation as prayed for, if so advised, and it is open to the respondent to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.
