Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5441
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
V. Kulathumani & Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MPI) Department & Others
Writ Petition Nos.46833 OF 2006, 38566 OF 2006, 7292 OF 2009 & 18632 OF 2010 & M.P.NOS.1 & 2 OF 2009 IN WP.NO.7292 OF 2009 M.P.NO.2 OF 2010 IN WP.NO.18632 OF 2010
Decided On : 15-12-2010
For the Petitioners:S. Rajendra Kumar for M. Antony Selvaraj, Advocates.
For the Respondent: R. Murali, G.A.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in promotion disputes, petitioners must meet the statutory requirements and come within the feeder category provided under the rules. In the absence of doing so, the court cannot grant any relief as it would encroach the decision-making process of the government.
Headnote:
Extension Assistants - Promotion Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.2093, Agriculture Department, dated 9.11.1987; G.O.Ms.No.848, Food Department, dated 3.8.1978 - The court discussed the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.2093, Agriculture Department, dated 9.11.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.848, Food Department, dated 3.8.1978. It highlighted the lack of statutory rules providing for Extension Assistants as a feeder category for promotion to the post of Senior Inspectors. The court emphasized that the petitioners must necessarily come within the feeder category provided under the rules, and in the absence of doing so, the court cannot grant any relief as it would encroach the decision-making process of the government.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the promotion of Extension Assistants to the post of Senior Inspectors in the Dairy Development Department. The petitioners argued that they were qualified and doing similar work to Senior Inspectors, but the government's policy and lack of statutory rules prevented their promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not come within the feeder category provided under the rules for promotion. It emphasized that in the absence of meeting the statutory requirements, the court cannot grant any relief as it would encroach the decision-making process of the government.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to promotion as Senior Inspectors despite the lack of statutory rules providing for Extension Assistants as a feeder category for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners must necessarily come within the feeder category provided under the rules for promotion. In the absence of meeting the statutory requirements, the court cannot grant any relief as it would encroach the decision-making process of the government.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as misconceived and lacking in merits. No costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
1. The above writ petitions were listed today under the caption "Specially Ordered Cases" as per the orders of the Honourable The Chief Justice, dated 14.12.2010.
2. In all the four writ petitions, the first petitioner is common. The other petitioners are similarly placed persons. In view of the interconnectivity, all the writ petitions were heard together and a common order is passed.
3. Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Mr.M.Antony Selvaraj and Mr. R. Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents.
4. In the first writ petition, Mr.K.V.Kulathumani and five others filed Original Application No.5898 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking for a direction to prepare a panel for Extension Officers for being promoted to the post of Senior Inspectors in the Dairy Development Department. According to them, 44 Extension Officers are working in the Dairy Development Department and out of which six petitioners were to be promoted as Senior Inspectors.
5. The contention was that the Extension Assistants belong to the Dairy Development Department Subordinate Service as much as the Senior Inspectors working in the Department and they are having same educational qualification as that of Senior Inspectors and they are doing the work almost same to be as that of Senior Inspectors, they have put in more than 15 years of service.
6. In the said original application, notice of motion was ordered. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.46833 of 2006. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 5.9.2009. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, it was stated that the initially the Department sent a proposal to absorb Extension Assistants as Senior Inspectors to the Government and whenever the Government called for remarks, the same was furnished by the Department and it was also discussed with the Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry Department, the Government did not agree to absorb the Extension Assistants in the post of Senior Inspectors. The reason for not doing so is set out in page No.6 which reads as follows:
"Since it gives scope for two cadre jump i.e. Extension Assistants to Junior Inspector and Junior Inspector to Senior Inspector. Accordingly, the proposal was withdrawn by this office vide letter Rc.No.6744/D1/96, dated 5.2.1997 on the ground that revised proposals will be sent to Government later. Subsequently based on the representation received from the Tamil Nadu Arasu Aluvalar Kazhagam (C & D Group) requesting to send proposals upgrading Extension Assistants posts to the post of Junior Inspector revised proposals were sent to Government for upgrading the Extension Assistants posts to the posts of Junior Inspector vide this office letter Rc.No.18403/97/D1, dated 29.1.1998. After a protracted correspondence on the issue, the Government in their letter No.204, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MP-1) Department, dated 1.10.1999, stating that due to financial constraints, the above proposal has not been accepted. Hence, the claim of the petitioners could not be complied with and no order has been passed by the Government for considering the post of Extension Assistants as feeder category for inclusion in the panel neither to the post of Senior Inspector nor to the post of Junior Inspector."
7. Even when the said Original Application was pending, the first petitioner K.V.Kulathumani filed O.A.No.7489 of 2000 before the Tribunal seeking to challenge the order of the Commissioner dated 11.8.2000, wherein and by which the Special Commissioner proposed to fill up the vacancy in the category of Senior Inspectors coming under the Tamil Dairy Development Subordinate Service from the category of Assistants working in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service by recruitment
