Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 381
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, J.
S.K.M. Sivakumaran
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.P. No. 15889 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided on: 19-02-2014
For the Petitioner: N.G.R. Prasad, M/s. Row & Reddy, Aedvocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, P.H. Aravind Pandian, AAG Assisted by A. Kumar, Spl. GP, R3, C.N.G. Niraimathi, R4 & R5, A. Ganesan, R6 to R10, A. Mohammed Isamail, R11, G. Sankaran, Advocates.
Headnote:
Seniority - Motor Vehicle Inspector - G.O.Ms.No.165 Labour & Employment, G.O.Ms.No.156 Labour & Employment, Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Service Rules - The court held that the petitioner's seniority should be counted from the date of his appointment, as his appointment is earlier to the appointment of direct recruits to a regular vacancy on compassionate ground. The court also noted that the appointment on compassionate ground is a legally valid appointment and that the seniority of the petitioner has to be fixed from the date of his regularisation. The court further observed that the petitioner's claim cannot be rejected on the ground that he has not completed 5 years of service as RTO, considering that his seniority was not fixed and he was promoted only after a delay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr-II on compassionate ground, sought seniority above direct recruits, respondents 4 & 5, and promotion as Deputy Transport Commissioner. The seniority list was prepared after a delay, placing the petitioner below the direct recruits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's seniority should be counted from the date of his appointment, as his appointment is earlier to the appointment of direct recruits to a regular vacancy on compassionate ground. The court also noted that the appointment on compassionate ground is a legally valid appointment and that the seniority of the petitioner has to be fixed from the date of his regularisation. The court further observed that the petitioner's claim cannot be rejected on the ground that he has not completed 5 years of service as RTO, considering that his seniority was not fixed and he was promoted only after a delay.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the determination of the petitioner's seniority in relation to direct recruits, the validity of the appointment on compassionate ground, and the eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant government orders and rules, which led to the conclusion that the petitioner's seniority should be counted from the date of his appointment and that the appointment on compassionate ground is legally valid. The court also considered the delay in the petitioner's promotion to RTO and its impact on his eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The respondents 1 & 2 were directed to prepare a seniority list of eligible Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr-I & II, by placing the petitioner above the direct recruits, respondents 4 & 5, and promote him as Deputy Transport Commissioner on that basis.
1. This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing No.T1/56052/2006 (EO.No.360/2013) dated 07.08.2013 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to prepare a seniority list of eligible Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr-I based on the petitioner's seniority in Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr-II, by placing the petitioner above the direct recruits, respondents 4 & 5, and promote him as Deputy Transport Commissioner on that basis and till then not to make promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner.
2. Originally this writ petition was filed praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to prepare a seniority list of eligible Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr-I based on the petitioner's seniority in Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr-II, by placing him above the direct recruits, respondents 4 & 5, and make promotion to Deputy Transport Commissioner on that basis and till then not to make promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner.
3. The brief facts necessary to decide the issue involved in this writ petition are as follows:-
3(1) The petitioner was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr-II (hereinafter referred to as MVI Gr-II) by the proceedings dated 15.12.1992 of the Transport Commissioner, on compassionate ground since his father Mutharasappan died while in service. The petitioner joined duty on 28.12.1992. On 16.07.1993 Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165 Labour & Employment, was issued waiving passing of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission examination for persons like the petitioner, who were appointed on compassionate grounds. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to be regularised with effect from the date of his joining the service, because he was otherwise qualified.
3(2) While situation stood thus, after 16.07.1993, the 4th respondent-D.Venkatraman and 5th respondent-K.R.Krishnamurthy were appointed as MVI Gr-II, by order dated 26.07.1993 and they joined duty only during September-1993. As such, their date of appointment is subsequent to the date of appointment of the petitioner. Though there was administrative delay in issuing the order regularising the services of the petitioner in the post of MVI Gr-II, his services were regularised by order dated 25.03.1999 with retrospective effect from 16.07.1993. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that naturally, he is senior to the respondents 4 & 5, as they had joined duty only during September-1993 pursuant to the order of appointment dated 26.07.1993.
3(3) While so, the respondents 4 & 5 were promoted as MVI Gr-I on 12.03.1998, whereas the petitioner was promoted as MVI Gr-I only on 11.10.1999. On 03.08.2000, the petitioner's services as MVI Gr-I were regularised. In the order of regularisation dated 03.08.2000, though the respondents 4 & 5 were shown above the petitioner, it was clearly mentioned that the seniority list of MVI Gr-I would be issued separately. But, the seniority list of MVI Gr-I was not issued. It is further case of the petitioner that since he joined service earlier to the respondents 4 & 5 and his services were regularised with effect from 16.07.1993 ie., earlier to the date of appointment of the respondents 4 & 5, petitioner's name should have been shown as senior to the respondents 4 & 5. But, in the order of regularisation, the names of the respondents 4 & 5 were shown above the name of the petitioner.
3(4) On 16.11.2006, the Transport Commissioner called for particulars from the first 15 eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer (RTO). Since the seniority list was not prepared, the respondents 4 & 5 were among the first 15 to be called for. Hence, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20115/2007 before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to prepare a seniority list of MVI Gr-I and to place him
