IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.06.2022

CORAM

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

W.P.No.12099 of 2022

R.V.Mohan Dass

.. Petitioner

Vs

1.Union of India Rep. By

its Secretary to the Government,

Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Shram Shakti Bhavan,

New Delhi - 110 011.

2.The Central Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organization,

(Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan),

No.14, Bhikagi Cama Place,

New Delhi - 110 066.

3.The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner,

Zonal Office (Chennai & Puducherry),

No.37, Royapettah High Road,

Chennai - 600 014.

4.The Regional Provident Commissioner - I,

Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Regional Office, Chennai South,

No.37, Royapettah High Road,

Chennai - 600 014.

.. Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the

entire records pursuant to the interim order of the Hon'ble

Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 29.04.2022

in O.A.No. 263 of 2022, quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Saravanan

For Respondents:

Mr.Rajesh Vivekandanthan

for R1

Mr.V.Vijay Shankar

for R2 to R4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

(Made by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

1.

This petition is by the applicant before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.310/00263/2022.

The Central Administrative Tribunal has refused to grant stay

against reversion of the applicant and it is that interim order

dated 29.04.2022, which is impugned in this writ petition by the

said employee.

2.

Heard Mr.S.Saravanan, learned advocate for the

petitioner, Mr.Rajesh Vivekandanthan, learned advocate for the

first respondent and Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned advocate for

respondents 2 to 4 for the respondent authorities.

3.

Learned advocate for the writ petitioner / applicant

before the Central Administrative Tribunal has vehemently

submitted that, in view of the provisions contained in Ad Hoc

Appointments/Promotions Rules, the reversion of the petitioner

was unsustainable and therefore the Central Administrative

Tribunal ought to have granted protection against reversion. It

is noted that, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken

this Court extensively through the seniority position, the

promotion order of the petitioner's junior dated 05.04.2021 and

his reversion order dated 14.03.2022. It is submitted that this

petition be entertained and the relief as prayed for be granted.

4.

On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent

authorities has submitted that the promotion of the petitioner

was not against the vacancies available for promotion but it was

ad-hoc against the vacancies available under the quota of

appointment after examination. It is submitted that, the

continuance of the writ petitioner on the said post was subject

to availability of selected candidates and therefore on the

availability of those regular selected candidates (after

examination) for the quota reserved for them, the petitioner

could not have been continued, which resulted in dis-continuance

of his promotion, which is not the reversion in any manner -

either on punitive ground or for any other reason. It is further

submitted that, on the basis of the service record and other

relevant material, the petitioner was even otherwise not found

suitable for promotion and his supersession was already a matter

on record (vide order dated 05.04.2021) and that is not

challenged by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It

is submitted that, the Central Administrative Tribunal has not

committed any error by not granting interim relief in favour of

the writ petitioner and therefore this petition be dismissed.

5.

Having heard learned advocates for the respective

parties and having cons