Consolidated seniority list mandatory for Class IV promotions without prescribed ratio; arbitrary junior promotions warrant compensation.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation has filed these writ appeals challenging the common order dated 27.06.2023 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.4214 of 2018 and 14515 of 2016. The writ petitions were filed by one P.Mohan. Mohan was appointed as Office Assistant in 1996. The post of Office Assistant is a Class IV Category I Post in Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations Basic Service. The next promotional post is that of Record Assistant. For a person to be promoted to the said post, one must have worked in Post IV of Corporation Basic Service for a period of five years. He should also have possessed pass in 10^th standard/Matriculation Examination. Since the Office Assistants were stagnating and could not be promoted as Record Assistants owing to want of vacancies, some 14 of them including Thiru.Mohan were promoted as Conservancy Supervisors vide order dated 31.10.2006. Since this promotion was made de hors the rules, proposal was submitted to the Government seeking ratification and relaxation. The Government vide letter dated 09.12.2013 rejected the proposal. As a result, the promotees including Thiru.Mohan were reverted as Office Assistants vide proceedings dated 25.07.2016 issued by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation. The order passed by the Government was put to challenge in WP(MD)No.4214 of 2018. The order of reversion passed by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.14515 of 2016. The writ petitioner pointed out that persons who were junior to him had been promoted as Record Assistants. Taking note of all these aspects, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.06.2023 disposed of the writ petitions in the following terms:-

“7. After hearing the rival submissions of both the parties, this Court has perused the affidavit of the petitioner as well as the counter filed by the respondents. A specific contention was raised by the petitioner is that through Resolution No.183, dated 06.07.2005, a decision was taken by the respondents to ratify the appointments of the juniors in the post of Conservancy Inspectors by relaxing the educational qualification. Only after passing such resolution, the seniority list which was prepared vide proceedings dated 14.11.2002 was disturbed. If the respondents had followed the said seniority list without the Resolution No.183, the present issue would not have arisen. In the seniority list, the petitioner was kept under Serial No.126. Based on the Seniority List, until 86 persons was promoted as Record Clerk. Since the respondents failed to follow the said seniority list, the petitioner is still in the list without any promotion, but his juniors were over riding the petitioner.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents should follow the seniority list dated 04.11.2002, there cannot be any deviation from the said senior list. If any person is granted any promotion dehors the seniority list, then they will not have any right to sustain in the said post. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner case and grant promotion to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

2. Aggrieved by the same, these writ appeals have been filed by the Madurai Corporation.

3.There is considerable merit in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Madurai Corporation that without setting aside the orders impugned in the writ petitions, relief could not have been straightaway granted to the writ petitioner. He is also right in his contention that there are many more seniors above Thiru.Mohan in the post of Office Assistant and that therefore, Thiru.Mohan alone could not have been promoted as Record Assistant by overlooking their seniority. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

4.At