Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
P. Mihiran - Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Others - Respondent
WP No. 3359 of 2015 & MP No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 10-08-2022
For the Petitioner:V. Neethidurai, Advocate. For the Respondents: K. Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel for TASMAC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absorption/promotion of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor was not in accordance with established procedures and rules, emphasizing the lack of established procedures for selection and appointment through Open Competitive Process.
Headnote:
Appointment - Absorption of Salesman as Supervisor - No established procedures followed for appointment - Absorption/promotion of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor is perverse and not in consonance with the Rules - Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) - No Rule for promotion to the post of Supervisor - No established procedures for selection and appointment through Open Competitive Process
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, initially appointed as a temporary Salesman, was reverted to the post of Salesman from the post of Supervisor. The petitioner claimed to be fully qualified for the post of Supervisor and challenged the reversion order, contending that it was issued without considering his eligibility. The respondent-TASMAC argued that there were no rules for promoting a Salesman to the post of Supervisor and that the petitioner's appointment as Supervisor was irregular. The petitioner failed to respond to multiple notices and explanations, and the respondent-TASMAC issued the impugned reversion order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's absorption/promotion to the post of Supervisor was not in accordance with established procedures and rules. The court held that the decision to revert the petitioner from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman was in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's absorption/promotion to the post of Supervisor was valid and in accordance with the rules and established procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absorption/promotion of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor was not in consonance with the Rules or the established principles. The court emphasized the lack of established procedures for selection and appointment through Open Competitive Process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Se.Mu.No.R.V.1/2143/2014 dated 27.01.2015, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Supervisor and extend all benefits with back wages etc.)
The order of reversion reverting the writ petitioner from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman in proceedings dated 27.01.2015 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner states that he was appointed as temporary Salesman on contract basis in proceedings dated 29.11.2003. He was continuing as a temporary Salesman till 28.02.2006. He made an application to absorb him as Supervisor in the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) in the existing vacancy. The petitioner further states that he is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Supervisor. His initial appointment was made as Salesman, since he was not in a position to mobilise the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards security deposit. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- and his case was recommended for appointment to the post of Supervisor. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor in proceedings dated 20.02.2006. While-so, the respondent-TASMAC issued an order of reversion reverting the writ petitioner from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman in proceedings dated 19.07.2013. The said reversion order was challenged by the writ petitioner in WP No.20146 of 2013. This Court allowed the said writ petition on 23.07.2013 and remanded the matter back to the third respondent therein, to provide an opportunity to the writ petitioner and take a decision on merits.
3. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the respondent-TASMAC issued notice to the petitioner providing an opportunity to submit his objections/explanations with reference to the reasons stated for reversion. The petitioner had not responded to the said notice. Thus, the respondent-TASMAC issued the impugned order in proceedings dated 27.01.2015, reverting the writ petitioner again from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post of Supervisor and he was appointed to the said post based on the deposit made by him and for one vacancy in the post of Supervisor, which was vacant in the Cuddalore District and, out of 50 Salesmen, the petitioner was selected and appointed. Thus he continued in the post of Supervisor. The order of reversion was issued without considering the eligibility of the writ petitioner and thus it is to be set aside.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-TASMAC objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that there is no rule to promote the Salesman to the post of Supervisor. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Salesman on consolidated pay and his services were not even regularised and the petitioner was not a regular employee of the respondent-TASMAC. Thus, he cannot be promoted and the District Manager of the respondent-TASMAC during the relevant point of time erroneously appointed the writ petitioner to the post of Supervisor. In respect of such irregular appointments to the post of Supervisors, the Head of the Department, namely, the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., issued directions to revert all those employees who were irregularly appointed to the post of Supervisors.
6. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Managing Director of the respondent-TASMAC, the writ petitioner was reverted to the post of Salesman. The petitioner, no doubt, challenged the said order of reversion issued in the year 2013 by this Court in WP No.20146 of 2013 and the order was set aside
