Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, JJ.
V. Narayanasamy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary (Works) Chief Secretariat & Others – Respondent
W.P.No. 35015 of 2014
Decided On : 26-03-2015
For the Petitioner:K.S. Ilangovan for M/s. Achari & Antoni Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R1 to R4, R. Syed Mustafa, Spl. Govt Pleader (Puducherry).
Recruitment Rules must be followed, and executive instructions cannot be applied in the absence of valid rules.
Headnote:
Recruitment Rules - Work Inspectors - G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 13.05.1991, G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 22.05.2009, VI Central Pay Commission - The court held that the Recruitment Rules of 1991 did not become redundant and inoperative due to the amalgamation of posts, and executive instructions could not be applied in the absence of valid rules. The Tribunal's direction to place the petitioners in the non-existent post of Overseer (Junior Grade) was deemed conflicting and contradictory, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Work Inspectors in the Public Works Department of Union Territory of Puducherry, sought promotion as Overseers. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioners based on the amalgamation of posts and draft Recruitment Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Recruitment Rules of 1991 did not become redundant and inoperative due to the amalgamation of posts, and executive instructions could not be applied in the absence of valid rules. The Tribunal's direction to place the petitioners in the non-existent post of Overseer (Junior Grade) was conflicting and contradictory.
Issues: 1) Whether the Recruitment Rules of 1991 became redundant and inapplicable due to the amalgamation of posts. 2) Whether executive instructions could be applied in the absence of valid rules. 3) Whether the Tribunal's direction to place the petitioners in the non-existent post of Overseer (Junior Grade) was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Recruitment Rules of 1991 did not become redundant and inoperative due to the amalgamation of posts, and executive instructions could not be applied in the absence of valid rules. The Tribunal's direction to place the petitioners in the non-existent post of Overseer (Junior Grade) was conflicting and contradictory.
Final Decision: The order of the Tribunal dated 29.04.2014 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in the light of the court's observations.
P.R. Shivakumar, J.
1. This writ petition arises out of a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal called in short CAT, Madras Bench, Chennai dated 29.04.2014 made in O.A.No.1487 of 2010, O.A.No.67 of 2012 with Contempt Application No.310/00010 of 2014. The writ petitioner and two others who are employed as Work Inspectors in the Public Works Department of Union Territory of Puducherry and similarly placed Work Inspectors, filed O.A.No.67/2012 for setting aside the order of the 4th respondent in his Order No.1-2/PW/CE/AC3/Pro/2008-11 dated 11.01.2012 as highly illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution India and violative of the doctrine of equality and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to promote them as Overseers in accordance with their seniorty in the post of Work Inspectors. The Tribunal disposed of the application with the following directions:
"32. In the interest of justice, as a special dispensation in the peculiar circumstances of the case, a possible way of redressing the grievance of the Applicants as indicated by the Puducherry PWD Work Inspectors Association in their representation dated 16.06.2010, is to bring them to the pre-revised scale of Rs.4000 - 6000, for which the replacement scale prescribed is Rs.5200 - 20200 with Grade Pay Rs.2400 in the VI CPC pay scale, or in the replacement pay-scale in the VI CPC corresponding to that of Overseer (Junior Grade)(without taking into consideration the effect of amalgamation) and not the higher pay scale recommended by the VI CPC for the amalgamated post. The designation/nomenclature of the post is left to the Respondents to decide. This will be without prejudice to the grant of higher pay-scale (recommended by VI CPC) for the amalgamated post of Overseer to those who possess the higher qualifications indicated by VI CPC or in the draft revised RRs. Such a differential treatment on the basis of qualification of the employees, the assumption being that it would translate eventually into higher quality of work/output by those with better qualification, is a reasonable one and is justified on the touchstone of Article 14. It would not be offensive to the philosophy of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
33. The Respondents are accordingly directed to re-examine the case of the Appellants in the two OAs on the above basis and take a decision preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With this both the OAs with the contempt petition No.310/00010/2014 filed by the Applicants in OA No.67 of 2012 submitting that despite the interim order of status quo dated 19.01.2012 in the OA in regard to promotion of Work Inspectors to the post of Overseer, the Respondents were taking steps to promote some more persons as per Annexure A/1 which was in willful disobedience of the order of this Tribunal, as well as MA (unnumbered) filed in the aforesaid CA seeking a stay to all further promotions, stand disposed of. The Registry is directed to number the MA. The parties will suffer their own costs."
2. Aggrieved by the same and praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the said order of the Tribunal dated 29.04.2014 made in O.A.No.67 of 2012 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to promote the petitioner as Overseer as per the seniority list published on 15.10.2008, the petitioner is before this court.
3. We have heard the arguments of Mr.K.S.Ilangovan, learned counsel representing M/s.Achari & Antoni Associates, counsel on record for the petitioner and by Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 were heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers were also perused.
4. In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Pondicherry [Overseer (Senior Grade), Overseer (Junior Grade) and Work Inspector] Recruitment
