Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4220
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
B. Olivannan & Others
Versus
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & Others
WRIT APPEAL No.1502 of 1998 and C.M.P.No.16512 of 1998
Decided On : 18-11-2008
For the Appellant :S. Vadivelu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Vijay Narain, Senior Counsel, M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates.
Headnote:A. TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD - Service Rules, 1990 - Rule 3, 4(7) - Constitution of India, Articles 16(1) and 226 - Service/Promotion - Respondents 2-15 promoted as Assistant Managers informing that inter-se seniority of promotees will be fixed below grade of directly recruited Assistant Managers - Intimation done later to R2-15 that they have been placed above appellants - WP filed by appellants challenging order, dismissed - In WA, respondent-1 (TIIC) contended that vacancy of Assistant Manager was decided to be filed up in ratio 1:1 as per Service Rules of corporation - HELD first vacancy to be filled up by direct recruitment and second vacancy by promotee as per Service Rules - Measuring of "Rota" (Para 16) - As per Service Rule ’quota-rota’ method in filling up vacancies of a particular cadre of offices in public employment, it is mandatory for authorities to follow scrupulously rotational method in fixing inter se seniority between two cadres - Ratio cannot be tampered with - R-3, 4(7) of Service Rules has prescribed with seniority between direct recruits and promotees at 1:1 which is to be followed in fixing inter se seniority - Order of single judge in Writ Petition set aside.
B. WORDS AND PHARSES - Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation limited service Rules, 1990 - Rule 3, 4(7) - "Rota" - Indicates procedure in fixing seniority following ratios between two categories of same cadre officers, while fixing their inter-se seniority (Para 16).
C. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 16(1) - Equality of opportunity in matters relating to public employment is one of fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution, which cannot be tampered with arbitrarily by authorities - Guidelines given in AIR 1967 SC 52, by Constitution Bench of Apex Court, relied on (Para 21).
Result: WA allowed.
S. Tamilvanan, J.
The writ appeal has been preferred, challenging the correctness of the order, dated 11.02.1998 made in W.P.No.4862 of 1996 by the learned single Judge.
2. The appellants herein were the petitioners in the writ petition. They were working as Assistant Managers in the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd, the first respondent herein in different stations on the date of filing the writ petition. They were directly recruited and appointed as Assistant Managers by the first respondent, as per Service Rules from open market and the respondents 2 to 15 were promotees to the post of Assistant Manager from the feeder category of officers in the first respondent Corporation.
3. The appellants / petitioners filed the writ petition for quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in No.Admn/A3/1706/95, dated 08.03.1995, whereby the seniority of the appellants herein was altered by placing them below the respondents 2 to 15 herein and the connected proceedings of the first respondent in No.Admn/A3/1706/95, dated 08.05.1995, so far as the appellants herein are concerned and direct the first respondent to restore the original seniority of the petitioners herein and to place them above the respondents 2 to 15 herein.
.4. It is an admitted fact that as per the circular, dated 19.01.1999 issued by the first respondent, applications were invited from the members of the staff working in the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd., from the cadre of Officers, who possess the following qualification and who have completed five years of service in Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd., for selection to the post of Assistant Manager. The qualification prescribed therein is CA/ICWA/B.E/B.Tech or Post Graduate with MBA. The appellants having the required qualification had applied for the said post and were selected after undergoing a written test and interview. On 01.03.1994, the appellants were informed that they have been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Managers in the first respondent Corporation. The appointment was made, by order dated 10.03.1994, though their selection for the appointment was intimated on 01.03.1994. However, the appointment was made by Proceedings, dated 10.03.1994, informing that the appellants who were appointed as Assistant Managers were deemed to officiate as Assistant Managers from 01.03.1994.
5. As per Proceedings No.Admn/A3/4564/94-1, dated 28.02.1994, the respondents 2 to 15 were also informed that they were promoted as Assistant Managers with effect from 01.03.1994 and they were deemed to officiate as Assistant Managers from the date, 01.03.1994.
6. According to the appellants, as per paragraph 3 of the proceedings, dated 28.02.1994, it was informed to the respondents 2 to 15 that the inter-se seniority of the promotees, as shown in the above proceedings will be fixed below the directly recruited Assistant Managers, who were selected on 27.02.1994. It is not in dispute that both the promotees as well as direct recruits were on probation for a period of one year from 01.03.1994. According to the appellants, as per the proceedings, dated 28.02.1994, the direct recruits, selected through open market were placed above the promotees, the respondents 2 to 15 herein. But, as per the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in No.Admn/A3/1706/95, dated 08.03.1995, contrary to the earlier proceeding, it was intimated that the seniority of the promotees, the respondents 2 to 15 herein had been placed above the appellants. Hence, the appellants / direct recruits, filed the writ petition, challenging the order. With the above averments, the appellants / petitioners have sought the relief to quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 08.03.1995 revising the seniority of the appellants and to issue a direction to the first respondent to restore their seniority, as per order, dated 28.02.1994, that was maintained before the issue
