Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4188
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
V. Muthurani & Others
Versus
The District Collector, Ramnad District & Another
W.P.No.7613 to 7615 of 2007(T) & O.A.No.3693 to 3695 of 2007
Decided on : 11-10-2011
For the Petitioners:R. Muthukannan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - V. Subbiah, Spl. G.P., R2 - P.S. Jayakumar, Advocate.
Judicial intervention in absence of promotional avenues, Obligations of the State to create promotional avenues
Headnote:
Promotion - Employment Dispute - G.O.No.189 Rural Development Department dated 10.06.1997 - Food Corporation of India And Others vs. Parashotam Das Bansal And Others (2008) 5 SCC 100 - O.Z. Hussain (Dr.) v. Union of India - Ujagar Prints (III) v. Union of India - Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt - State of Tripura v. K.K. Roy - Promotion providing efficiency and advancement, Judicial intervention in absence of promotional avenues, Obligations of the State to create promotional avenues
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employed as conductress, sought promotion to the post of Junior Assistant due to lack of promotional avenues in their entire career.
Finding of the Court:
The Court declined to grant the relief as prayed for, directing the 1st respondent to send necessary proposals to the Government of Tamilnadu to grant at least one promotional avenue to the post of Conductress, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court.
Issues: Lack of promotional avenues for conductress, Entitlement to seek promotion in absence of specific rules, Obligations of the State to create promotional avenues
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial intervention in absence of promotional avenues, Obligations of the State to create promotional avenues
Final Decision: The writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to send necessary proposals to the Government of Tamilnadu to grant at least one promotional avenue to the post of Conductress.
1. The petitioners are employed as conductress in various Panchayat Union Schools in Thirupullani Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District. They are employed as conductress from 1975. They were regularised in service in 1985 on completion of 10 years of service.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in their entire career they do not have any promotional avenues. They joined as conductress and have to retire as conductress. Though G.O.No.189 Rural Development Department dated 10.06.1997 provides 10% reservation for the post of Office Assistant, Record Clerk, Night Watchman etc., in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, the conductress are not given such promotional chance. According to the petitioners, the scale of pay of conductress and the scale of pay of the Office Assistant, is one and the same. The petitioners have sought direction to the respondents to consider them for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated that the Rules do not provide for promotion from the post of conductress to the post of Junior Assistant, as claimed in the writ petitions. Hence the petitioners could not seek promotion to the post of Junior Assistant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though the petitioners have no right to seek promotion, they have right to be considered therefor. It is submitted that the Courts could issue proper direction in this regard, when there is no avenue of promotion at all. The learned counsel has heavily relied upon the judgment in Food Corporation of India And Others vs. Parashotam Das Bansal And Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 100.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the absence of any Rules providing for promotion, the petitioners are not entitled to seek promotion to the post of Junior Assistant.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The petitioners have been in employment in the post of conductress for the past 36 years, and the same is not disputed. It is also represented that there is no avenue for promotion to the post of conductress. According to the respondents, since no Rule provides for promotion, they are helpless, in the case of the petitioners.
8. It is also a fact that the petitioners have not made the Government as a party to the writ petitions, when the Government is the authority to frame Rules, under Article 309 of the Constitution, or under the relevant statute and to create avenues for promotion.
9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for the post of Junior Assistants. If such direction is given, then that could go against the existing Statutory Rules. However, the 1st respondent could take necessary steps in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India And Others vs. Parashotam Das Bansal And Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 100 by taking up the matter with the Government for providing promotional avenues for the conductress, since there is no chance for promotion to any post in their entire career.
10. Para 10 to 14 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder;
"10. This Court in O.Z. Hussain (Dr.) v. Union of India1 opined: (SCC pp. 691-92, para
7)
“7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical ‘A’ Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of t
