Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3967
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Y. Usharani
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government & Others
W.P.No. 31291 of 2013 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided on: 05-11-2014
For the Petitioner:N. Manoharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1, I. Arockiasamy, Government Advocate, R2, K. Natarajan, R3 to R12, R. Sivakumar, Advocates.
The petitioner cannot challenge the rectification of the seniority list and the subsequent actions taken by the second respondent.
Headnote:
Seniority - Government Service - G.O.No.427, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioner sought transfer from Chennai Corporation to Coimbatore Corporation and was transferred as an Assistant. The Coimbatore Corporation revised the seniority lists, demoting the petitioner from Administrative Officer to Superintendent. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to forbear the demotion. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the second respondent rectified the mistake in the seniority list and the petitioner cannot question the action. [ISSUES] The issues involved the rectification of the seniority list and the petitioner's promotion. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the petitioner cannot challenge the rectification of the seniority list and the subsequent actions taken by the second respondent. [FINAL DECISION] The writ petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. The petitioner joined service as Typist (equivalent to Junior Assistant) in Chennai Corporation on 20.10.1999. She was promoted as Assistant on 04.03.2005. She sought transfer to Coimbatore Corporation, the second respondent herein. Based on the request made by her, she was transferred by the Government from Chennai Corporation to Coimbatore Corporation.
2. The petitioner joined as Assistant in Coimbatore Corporation on 01.12.2006. She was promoted as Superintendent on 03.06.2009, based on the seniority list of Assistants dated 06.12.2008. She was further promoted as Administrative Officer on 01.12.2013 based on the seniority list of Superintendents dated 01.04.2012.
3. While so, the Coimbatore Corporation placed an agenda dated 12.11.2013 for consideration of its Council on 14.11.2013 about the revision of seniority lists dated 06.12.2008 of Assistants and 01.04.2012 of Superintendents. As per the agenda, the aforesaid seniority lists would be revised and the petitioner would be demoted from the post of Administrative Officer to the post of Superintendent.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of mandamus forbearing the second respondent Coimbatore Corporation from cancelling her promotion order dated 01.02.2013 for the post of Administrative Officer by demoting her to the post of Superintendent pursuant to the approval granted to the Agenda in Na.Ka.No.13924/2012/MC2 dated 12.11.2013 in the guise of revising the seniority prepared in the year 2006 and in violation of G.O.No.427, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.10.2006 issued by the first respondent Government.
5. While ordering notice of motion on 20.11.2013, this Court granted interim injunction restraining the second respondent from demoting the petitioner from the post of Administrative Officer to Superintendent.
6. The respondents 4 to 12 got impleaded in the writ petition as they are all interested parties and they sought to support the action of the second respondent.
7. The third respondent filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.No.31291 of 2013 along with a detailed affidavit seeking to vacate the interim injunction granted on 20.11.2013.
8. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner and explained in detail about the facts that led to placing of an agenda dated 12.11.2013 on 14.11.2013 before the second respondent Corporation Council. The second respondent also stated that a resolution was passed on 14.11.2013 revising the seniority and demoting the petitioner from the post of Administrative Officer to the post of Superintendent. The second respondent also pleaded that without questioning the resolution dated 14.11.2013, the writ petition is not maintainable.
9. On merits, the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent gives various details as to the reason for revising the seniority as otherwise the same would result in causing injustice to senior persons, who are more than ten years senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant.
10. The respondents 4 to 12 filed counter affidavit. It is averred that the petitioner was transferred from Chennai Corporation to Coimbatore Corporation in 2006 as an Assistant with a condition that she will be placed as a last person in the seniority list of Assistants of Coimbatore Corporation. But contrary to the said condition, she was placed above the respondents 3 to 12, while they were promoted as Assistants in Coimbatore Corporation in 1996, even before the petitioner was promoted as Assistant in Chennai Corporation in 2005. They sought to dismiss the writ petition.
11. Heard the submissions made on either side.
12.(i) The petitioner was appointed as Typist in Chennai Corporation on 20.10.1999. She completed her probation on 21.10.2001. She was promoted as Assistant on 04.03.2005. She made a representation dated 17.08.2005 to the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation seeking to tra
