IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 18/10/2004
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN
W.P.No. 17709 of 1997
1. P.K.Ravichandran
2. R.Thulasidass .. Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
800 Anna Salai
Chennai - 2
2. The Superintending Engineer
Coimbatore Electricity
Distribution Circle North
Tatabad
Coimbatore - 12
3. The Superintending Engineer
Nilagiri Electricity Distribution Circle
Ooty-1
The Nilgiris
4. O.P.Mohamed .. Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Rajan
For Respondents 1 to 3 : No appearance
Respondent 4 : given up
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
second respondent made in Memo No.SE/CEDC/N/Adm.2/A/F Sy.97 dated 20.10.1997
and the earlier administrative order passed by the first respondent in
No.47/IR3/2 (Adm. Br (87-1 dated 18.9.1987), to quash the same and to direct
the respondent to give promotion to the petitioners as Line Inspectors with
retrospective effect, viz., with effect from August 1991.
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of
writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the respondent refixing
the seniority.
2. The petitioners and the fourth respondent are employed in the
Electricity Board. They joined as Helpers and later on, they were promoted as
Wiremen and subsequently, as Linemen. The qualification that was prescribed
in the relevant period was five years experience with S.S.L.C. pass. Since
the petitioners fulfilled the qualification, they were promoted as Linemen on
24.12.1986. Subsequently, the fourth respondent was promoted as Lineman in
the year 1988. Thereafter, the second respondent published a seniority list
for the post of Lineman as on 01.01.1989 as per which, the petitioners were
placed at serial Nos.157 and 163 respectively and the fourth respondent was
placed at Serial No.227. When that be the case, the seniority list was
revised in view of the issuance of Board Proceedings in B.P.M.S.No.30 dated
26.3.1987 relaxing the qualification for promotion to the post of Lineman from
Wireman as per which, the fourth respondent, who became Line Man in the year
1988, was placed in Serial No.145 whereas the petitioners were placed in
Serial Nos.266 and 272 respectively. This was challenged in W.P.No.13318 of
1991 wherein this Court passed an order dated 02.7.1997 directing the first
respondent to look into the matter with regard to the seniority of the
petitioners therein on merits and as per the Rules and Regulations that were
in force at the relevant time and to pass appropriate orders. The matter was
again considered by the respondent-authorities and the respondentauthorities
once again issued the very same seniority list and based on the said list, the
fourth respondent was promoted as Line Inspector in the year 1991 and
thereafter, promoted as Foreman in the year 1994 whereas the petitioners were
promoted as Line Inspector only on 12.11.19 93. The first petitioner was
promoted as Foreman on 28.9.2001 and the second petitioner was promoted as
Foreman in the month of May 200 2. The Petitioners challenges the revision of
seniority list, which was challenged earlier in W.P.No.13318 of 1991, and the
subsequent promotion from the cadre of Lineman to Line Inspector as well as
the promotion to the post of Foreman.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
affidavit filed in support of the petition. None appears for the Electricity
Board.
4. Originally, there were three respondents but now two of them
have already retired from service and one employee alone is now figuring as
fourth respondent. Though notice has been served, it is seen that the fourth
respondent is dead and hence, the petition against him has been given up.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his
contention, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.JANARDHANA vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ((1983) 3 SCC 601) wherein Their Lordships have
held:
“It is an extremely undesirable, unjust and inequitable situation emerging in
service jurisprudence from precedents, namely, that a person already rendering
service as a promotee has to go down below a person who comes into service
decades after the promotee enters the service. The Court, therefore,
emphasised that it is the time to clearly initiate a proposition that a direct
recruit who comes into service after the promotee was already unconditionally
and without reservation promoted and whose promotion is not shown to be
invalid or illegal according to relevant statutory or non-statutory rules
should not be permitted by any principle of seniority to score a march over a
promotee because that itself being arbitrary would be violative of Articles 1
4 and 16.”
6. Admittedly, the petitioners were promoted as Lineman on
24.12.198 6 and the fourth respondent was promoted as Lineman two years
subsequent to the promotion of the petitioners, i.e., only in the year 1988.
Thereafter, the seniority was fixed. It is seen that the petitioners were
much above the fourth respondent in the original seniority list. Therefore,
the seniority of the petitioners cannot be altered merely based on the Board
Proceedings in B.P.M.S.No.30 dated 26.3.19 87 relaxing the educational
qualification retrospectively. The relaxation of Rule will be useful only in
subsequent promotions. Promotions already made in the year 1986 cannot be
superseded by subsequent relaxation of rules and subsequent promotions. A
person promoted to a higher post according to the rules gets the right to hold
that post and also seniority only from the date of such promotion. Therefore,
the original seniority list published before the issuance of Board Proceedings
in B.P.M.S.No.30 dated 26.3.1987, viz., fixing the petitioners at Serial
Nos.157 and 163 respectively and the fourth respondent as 227, cannot be
altered by reason of the issuance of the above said subsequent Board
Proceedings. Therefore, the revision of seniority on the basis of the Board
Proceedings in B.P.M.S.No.30 dated 2 6.3.1987 placing the fourth respondent in
Serial No. 145 and the petitioners at Serial Nos.266 and 272 respectively is
not legally sustainable. A vested right cannot be divested from the
petitioners. Therefore, revision of seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the
fourth respondent is not in accordance with law and Rules. In view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, revision of seniority has to be set aside, and accordingly, it is
set aside.
7. Admittedly, the fourth respondent was promoted as Line
Inspector in the year 1991. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be
promoted on the date when his junior, viz., fourth respondent, was promoted.
Similarly, they are also entitled for promotion from Line Inspector to Foreman
on the date when the fourth respondent was promoted. Therefore, the
respondent authorities are directed to give promotion to the petitioners as
stated above and they shall be deemed to have been promoted on the date when
the fourth respondent was promoted. They are also entitled to get all the
monetary benefits in the posts of Line Inspector as well as Foreman.
8. In the result, this writ petition is ordered accordingly. No
costs.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
gri
To
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
800 Anna Salai
Chennai - 2
2. The Superintending Engineer
Coimbatore Electricity
Distribution Circle North
Tatabad
Coimbatore - 12
3. The Superintending Engineer
Nilagiri Electricity Distribution Circle
Ooty-1
The Nilgiris