BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06/11/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.No.1848 of 2006 (O.A.No.587 of 2003) 1.M.Lobo 2.L.Daniel Kamaraj ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2.The Panchayat Union Commissioner, Viralimalai, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to Pro.Na.Ka.No.14317/2002/Pa.2, dated 01/08/2002, quash the same and issue directions to the first respondent to pass consequential order of approval of appointment as office Assistants of the Applicants herein in Viralimalai Panchayat Union and appoint them with effect from 27.06.2001 with all consequential service and monetary benefits. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ravi ^For Respondents ... Mr.So.Paramasivam Special Govt. Pleader :ORDER
The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.587 of 2003 before the
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal; consequent upon its abolition, the said
Original Application was transferred to this court and re-numbered as W.P.1848
of 2006, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to
Pro.Na.Ka.No.14317/2002/Pa.2, dated 01/08/2002, quash the same and issue
directions to the first respondent to pass consequential order of approval of
appointment as office Assistants of the Applicants herein in Viralimalai
Panchayat Union and appoint them with effect from 27.06.2001 with all
consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the
disposal of this writ petition would run thus:
The writ petitioners, according to them, were selected by the Commissioner
concerned after obtaining the list from the Employment Exchange for the post of
Office Assistants in Viralimalai Panchayat Union. As per the rules, the
selection has to be approved by the Collector, accordingly it was sent to the
Collector and while he was considering it, he received two communications vide,
(i) Memo.O.Mu.No.11207/2001, dated 18.07.2001, that there is stay order
in O.A.No.3214 of 2001, passed by the Tribunal against the filling up of posts
of Office Assistants, by direct recruitment in the Panchayat Union.
(ii) G.O.Ms.No.242, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department,
dated 29.11.2001.
Thereupon, everything had come to a grinding halt and till now the petitioners
are without any remedy. Accordingly, the petitioners pray for they being
appointed as Office Assistant.
4. Per contra, the Commissioner filed the counter detailing and
delineating, expressing and expatiating the facts that the writ petitioners
herein were earlier selected for the Post of Office Assistants in Viralimalai
Panchayat Union after getting the list from the Employment Exchange and as per
rule, when it was sent to the Collector for approval, it was returned for
reconsideration and once again, it was resubmitted. In the meanwhile, the
Commissioner issued orders appointing the petitioners. However, the Collector
rejected the selection and thereupon, fresh selection list was called from the
Employment Exchange and once again, the writ petitioners were selected and it
was sent for approval to the Collector.
5. In the meanwhile, the Collector was in receipt of the aforesaid stay
order and ban order. Furthermore, the same writ petitioners herein earlier
filed separately two O.A.Nos.3363 and 3364 of 2002 and in that, the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal passed orders on 20.06.2002, directing the Collector to
consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of the
recommendations of the Commissioner concerned. However, the Collector passed
order to the effect that in view of the ban order as well as the stay order in
one other matter, the request of the petitioners could not be accepted.
6. At the hearing, it has been clarified by the learned Government Pleader
that there is no ban order now. However, relating to stay order granted in
O.A.No.3214 of 2001 which was filed by Cholera Mazdoor Association as against
direct recruitment of the Office Assistants, neither the learned Government
Pleader nor the learned Counsel for the petitioners could enlighten this Court
as to whether the stay is in vogue or not.
7. Hence, in these circumstances, the following direction is issued:
It is for the Collector to get himself satisfied about the fact as to
whether the said stay order is in force or not and if it is found that no stay
is in vogue, then he shall pass suitable orders considering the representation
of the petitioners already submitted to the Commissioner concerned. The entire
process shall be
completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
8. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
rsb
To
1.The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Panchayat Union Commissioner,
Viralimalai,
Pudukkottai District.