IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 30-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.17542 of 2006 (O.A.No.2396 of 1995) K.Hemavathy .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2.The Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Madras-600 005. 3.S.Balakrishnan .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to refix her seniority in the post of Assistant above S.Balakrishnan and below B.Indira; and to direct the respondents to issue a consequential order appointing the Applicant as Office Manager/Superintendent with effect from the day, her junior Mr.S.Balakrishnan was appointed to the said post. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. It is stated by the petitioner that she was regularised in the post of Clerk, on 29.8.1966, and she had completed her probation, on 28.8.1968. She had passed the District Office Manual Test in the month of May, 1968, and she had passed Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part I in the month of May, 1970. Even though the petitioner was eligible to be promoted as an Assistant during the month of May, 1970, she was not promoted. During the year 1972, when promotions were being made to the post of Assistant, the petitioner was considered for such promotion and posting orders were approved for promoting her as an Assistant. However, no order was issued to her. On the other hand, one Ms.Janakipushkalambal, who was also given a similar promotion along with the petitioner was subsequently promoted. Further, some other persons who were junior to the petitioner were also promoted to the post of Assistant. Though the petitioner was the only person, who was qualified for promotion as an Assistant in May, 1970, she was not promoted as such, even during July, 1972. The reasons for not promoting the petitioner have not been made known by the respondents.
3. The petitioner has further stated that she was promoted as an Assistant only in the year 1978, even though persons who were junior to her were promoted in the year 1972. In spite of several representations the petitioner was not promoted as requested by her. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2396 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.17542 of 2006.
4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Clerk (Junior Assistant) and she had joined as such in the respondent Department, on 29.8.1966. Her services were regularised with effect from 29.8.1966. She had passed the District Office Manual Test held in May, 1968, and passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-1 held in May, 1970. She was declared to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation, on 28.8.1968. Thus, after passing the test and after the declaration of probation was made, the petitioner had become qualified for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant. Since, at that time there was no crucial date for preparation of panel for promotion to the post of Assistant, particulars of those who were qualified for promotion were called for and their names were arranged according to the seniority and promotion orders were issued, as and when vacancies had arisen. Accordingly, the particulars of those who had qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant were called for and a list of qualified Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno Typists were prepared and orders of promotion were issued to fill up the vacancies. However, the petitioner could not be promoted for want of vacancy, at that time. Subsequently, she was posted as a Steno Typist which is equal in category to that of a Junior Assistant, on her own request and she had worked as a Steno Typist from 1.11.72 to 4.5.78, so as to enable her to qualify for the post of Assistant Training Officer (Stenography) and also to avoid transfer to a place outside the Directorate.
5. It has been further stated that when a suitable vacancy had arisen within the Directorate of Employment and Training, she was promoted as an Assistant, on her own request and she had joined duty as such, on 5.5.1978. Again on her own request, she was granted conversion from Ministerial Service to Technical Cadre and posted as Assistant Training Officer (Stenography) in the Labour and Employment Department and she had joined duty as an Assistant Training Officer, (Stenography), on 30.6.1981 and served as such, upto 20.11.86. Later, on her request she was granted conversion to Ministerial Service and posted as an Assistant from 21.11.86. Therefore, there is no substance in the claim of the petitioner that she was granted promotion to the post of Assistant during the year 1972 and for revising the seniority in the post of Assistant and to place the petitioner above S.Balakrishnan. Further, it has also been stated that having known the fact that she had not been promoted as an Assistant, during the year 1972, she had neither appealed to the Director of Employment and Training, nor to the Government until the month of October, 1991, after a long delay of nearly 20 years. Therefore, the request was rejected by the Government in Government Lr.No.51414/P1/93-7, dated 22.3.1994. Thereafter, her appeal to the Government in her letter, dated 30.5.1994, was also rejected in Government Lr.No.34250/P1/94-2, dated 2.1.1995, stating that there were no valid reasons for entertaining her review petition. In such circumstances, there is no merit or substance in the case of the petitioner.
6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, it is clear that the petitioner had been accommodated in various posts, both in the Ministerial service, as well as in the Technical Cadre only on her request. Her request that she ought to have been promoted as an Assistant during the year 1972, was made only in the month of October, 1991, after a lapse of nearly 20 years. Such a belated request could not be considered by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner’s request had been rejected by the Government in the Government letter, dated 22.3.94 and thereafter, the review petition filed by her has been rightly rejected by the Government letter, dated 2.1.95. In such circumstances, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted by this Court, at this belated stage. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
csh
To
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Labour and Employment Department,
Fort St. George, Madras-9.
2.The Director of Employment
and Training, Chepauk,
Madras 600 005