Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. DHANAPALAN & G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
P. Bhaskaran & Others – Appellant
Versus
S.K.M. Sivakumaran & Others – Respondent
W.A.Nos. 302, 425 & 855 of 2014
Decided On : 28-05-2015
For the Appellant :M. Vijay Narayan, R. Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsels, A. Mohammed Ismail, M/s. Aiyer & Dolia, Advocates, P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Addl. Advocate General, assisted by R. Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader.
For the Respondent:R1, N.G.R. Prasad, for M/s. Row & Reddy, R7 & R10, K. Sridhar, Advocates.
The appointment of the writ petitioner was in accordance with rules and his seniority counts from the date of his appointment. The delay in regularisation process and promotions affected the inter se seniority among the candidates.
Headnote:
Seniority - Motor Vehicle Inspector - G.O.Ms.No.156, Labour & Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993, waiving passing of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission examination for compassionate appointees - Rule 35 (aa) - The appointment of the writ petitioner was in accordance with rules and his seniority counts from the date of his appointment - The delay in regularisation process and promotions effected to the appellants have to be taken into consideration while fixing the inter se seniority among the candidates
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) Gr-II on compassionate ground, sought seniority above direct recruits, respondents 4 and 5, and promotion as Deputy Transport Commissioner. The delay in regularisation process and promotions affected his seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the writ petitioner was in accordance with rules and his seniority counts from the date of his appointment. The delay in regularisation process and promotions affected the inter se seniority among the candidates.
Issues: The issues revolved around the seniority of the writ petitioner in relation to direct recruits and the impact of delay in the regularisation process and promotions on the inter se seniority among the candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the seniority of the writ petitioner had to be fixed with reference to the date of his appointment, as per Rule 35 (aa). The delay in the regularisation process and promotions affected the inter se seniority among the candidates.
Final Decision: The court did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and disposed of the appeals, taking into consideration the delay in the regularisation process and promotions affected the inter se seniority among the candidates.
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. All these appeals have been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 19.02.2014, made in W.P.No.15889 of 2013, allowing the case of the writ petitioner/first respondent herein, directing respondents 1 and 2/authorities therein to prepare a seniority list of eligible Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I and Grade II, by placing the writ petitioner above the direct recruits viz., respondents 4 and 5, and promote him as Deputy Transport Commissioner on that basis.
2. The Writ Petition was one, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent/Principal Secretary to Government, Home Transport (II) Department, bearing No.T1/56052/2006 (EO.No.360/2013), dated 07.08.2013, and to quash the same and consequently, direct first and second 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.
3. For the sake of convenience, the positions of the parties are referred to as in the writ petition.
4. The facts, which led to the filing of the Writ Petition, were as follows. :
4.1. Writ petitioner was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) Gr-II by the proceedings, dated 15.12.1992, of the Transport Commissioner, on compassionate ground, since his father Mutharasappan died in harness. He joined duty on 28.12.1992. On 16.07.1993, a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour & Employment Department, was issued waiving passing of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission examination for persons like writ petitioner, who were appointed on compassionate grounds and, hence, he was entitled to be regularised with effect from the date of his joining the service, as he was otherwise qualified.
4.2. After 16.07.1993, fourth respondent-D.Venkatraman and fifth respondent-K.R.Krishnamurthy were appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors Gr-II, by order dated 26.07.1993 and they joined duty only during September, 1993. As such, their date of appointment was subsequent to the date of appointment of the writ 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, he was senior to respondents 4 & 5.
4.3. Respondents 4 and 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 respondents 4 and 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 was the further case of the petitioner that since he joined the service earlier to respondents 4 and 5 and his services were regularised with effect from 16.07.1993 i.e., earlier to the date of appointment of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner's name should have been shown as senior to respondents 4 and 5. But, in the order of regularisation, the names of respondents 4 and 5 were shown above the name of the petitioner.
4.4. 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, respondents 4 and 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 respondents 1 and 2 to prepare a seniority list of MVI Gr-I and to place him above the respondents 4 and 5.
