Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
K. Lakshmi & Others – Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Labour Teynampet, Chennai – Respondent
WP. Nos. 5813, 5814 & 7942 of 2022 & W.M.P. Nos. 5888, 5890, 7933 & 7934 of 2022
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Legal Metrology - Promotion of Assistant Inspector of Labour as Deputy Inspector of Labour - Rule 5 of the IILM Rules, 2011, Rule 28 of Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011, Section 56 of the Legal Metrology Act, Section 40(5)(3) of Tamil Nadu Labour Subordinate Services
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Assistant Inspectors of Labour, sought inclusion in the approved list for promotion as Deputy Inspectors of Labour. Their names were initially included but later omitted based on the requirement of basic training at Indian Institute of Legal Metrology, Ranchi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, already employed as Legal Metrology Officers, were exempt from the educational qualification requirement for training at the Institute. The court also noted the power of the government to relax qualifications and the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion based on their service.
Issues: Exclusion of petitioners from promotion based on Rule 5 of IILM Rules, 2011 and Rule 28 of Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, as already employed Legal Metrology Officers, were exempt from the training requirement and eligible for promotion based on their service. The court also emphasized the prospective application of the rules and the government's power to relax qualifications.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to restore the seniority of the petitioners in the approved list for promotion as Deputy Inspector of Labour.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: W.P.No.5814 of 2022:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to proceedings E2/12600/2019-2 dated 14.03.2022 issued by respondent and to quash the same and direct the respondent to include the petitioners name (Seniority No.1637B) in the approved list of Assistant Inspector of Labour for Promotion as Deputy Inspector of Labour for the year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. W.P.No.7942 of 2022: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to proceedings E2/12600/2019-3 dated 14.03.2022 issued by respondent and to quash the same and direct the respondent to include the petitioners name (Seniority No.1652) in the approved list of Assistant Inspector of Labour for Promotion as Deputy Inspector of Labour for the year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.)
1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 14.03.2022, quash the same and direct the respondent to include the petitioners name in the approved list of Assistant Inspector of Labour for promotion as Deputy Inspector of Labour for the year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.
2. Since, the facts and circumstances in these cases are identical in nature, they are disposed of by way of this Common Order.
3(a). The case of the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 5813 of 2022 is that he was appointed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissioner as Steno Typist on 30.06.2018 and was designated as Assistant on 30.06.2008 and on 03.11.2014, he was upgraded as Superintendent and on 07.09.2018, he became the Assistant Inspector of Labour.
3(b). The case of the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 5814 of 2022 is that he was appointed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissioner as Typist on 18.12.1986 and got converted as Steno Typist on 04.12.1989 and was designated as Assistant on 09.03.2007 and on 06.08.2013, he was upgraded as Superintendent and on 03.07.2017, he became the Assistant Inspector of Labour.
3(c).The case of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7942 of 2022 is that he was appointed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissioner as Steno Typist on 01.02.1991 and was designated as Assistant on 01.01.2009 and on 29.04.2014, he was upgraded as Superintendent and on 09.07.2018, he became the Assistant Inspector of Labour.
4. It is the grievance of the writ petitioners that vide Proceedings in E4/42850/17 dated 26.02.2008, the draft seniority list was prepared in the post of Assistant Inspector of Labour, wherein, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.5813 of 2022 was placed in S.No.1637B. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.5814 of 2022 was placed in S.No.1585C and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7942 of 2022 is placed in 1652. On 17.02.2022, the respondent vide proceedings E2/12600/2019 dated 17.02.2022 prepared a list for promotion of Deputy Inspectors of Labour of the year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 and the said list was forwarded to the authorities calling upon them to clarify whether any disciplinary proceedings/vigilance enquiry are pending or any punishments suffered. In the list dated 17.02.2022, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.5813 of 2022 is placed in S.No.32. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.5814 of 2022 is placed in S.No.09 and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7942 of 2022 is placed in 41. Thereafter, the draft seniority list was approved and in the approved panel, the petitioners name were omitted and their juniors name were included.
5. Therefore, initially, they filed writ petitions directing the respondents to include their name for the post of Deputy Inspector of Labour. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions, the respondent issued a proceedings dated 14.03.2022 stating that since the petitioners had not undergone basic training in Ranchi Institute which is mandatory under Rule 5 of Indian Institute of Legal Metrology Rules, 20
The judgment establishes the principle that existing employees exempt from certain qualifications are eligible for promotion, and rules should be applied prospectively with consideration for governme....
Point of Law : Service Rules, 2005 would indicate that the post of Principal, Basic Training Centre is not even a post under the said Rules. Therefore, an incumbent holding the post of Principal cann....
The court upheld the state's relaxation of recruitment rules for employees lacking qualifications, asserting that such measures can mitigate undue hardship while respecting public service needs.
Point of Law : Cognizance of the State resorting to irregular recruitment and issued a direction to the effect that seniority of direct recruits, both outsiders and insiders should be determined acco....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of rules governing the appointment and promotion of Sanitary Inspectors, the distinction between qualified and unqualified Sanitar....
The period of continuous officiation after appointment has to be taken into account for determining seniority, and where an appointment was made by way of a stopgap arrangement, the experience on suc....
Entitlement to regular appointment and notional promotion based on irregularities in the appointment process and subsequent temporary appointment. Modification of order regarding arrears of salaries ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
