IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2009
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
W.P.No. 10888 of 2001
and
W.P.M.P.No.15754 of 2001
1. N.Elangovan .. Petitioner
.Vs.
1. Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Fisheries Development
Corporation,
129, R.K.Mutt Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-28.
2. D.Kannan. Manager,
Tamilnadu Fisheries Development
Corporation, Mandapam,
Ramnad District. .. Respondents
(R2 amended as per the order
of the court in dated 20.06.01)
Prayer: Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.7211/Pani.1/2000 dated 12.7.2000 and Na.Ka.No.1081/Pani.1/2001, dated 31.3.2001 and quash the same in so far as the 2nd respondent is concerned, and direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager (Production & Marketing), and pass such further or other orders.
For petitioner : Mr. T.Sellapandian
For respondents : Mr. M.Venkatakrishnan, for R2.
-----
O R D E R:
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.7.2000 passed by the Managing Director, Tamilnadu Fisheries Development Corporation, integrating Karangadu, Tuticorin and Madurai units. The second respondent is a Manager of Aqua Engineering of Madurai unit. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 31.3.2001 of the Manager, Tamilnadu Fisheries Development Corporation, Ramnad District, shifting Madurai Unit to Mandapam Unit.
2. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr.T.Sellapandian, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was working on the production side as Deputy Manager from 1992, he was not considered for promotion as Manager, inspite of availability of a vacancy in July 2000. Therefore, he made a representation. It is the further case of the petitioner that when two persons working as Managers (Production and Marketing) viz., Mr.Karthikeyan and Mr.Castro were sent on deputation, the respondent ought to have promoted and posted him as Manager. But in order to deprive his chances, the second respondent who was working as Manager in the Engineering wing was posted as Manager (Production and Marketing).
3. According to the petitioner, the post of Manager at Mandapam, (Production and Marketing) ought to have been filled up by considering his claim. Though the Managing Director, the Fisheries Development Corporation, Chennai has represented that the second respondent was appointed only as an adhoc arrangement, he was allowed to continue in the post of Manager (P&M) at Mandapam. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the second respondent was holding the post of Manager (AE) and his job was only to look after the construction of building and maintenance as a Civil Engineer and therefore, he was not qualified for the post of Manager (Production and Marketing). In these circumstances, the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent integrating different units and consequently appointing the second respondent as Manager amounts to depriving his chances of promotion to the post of Deputy Manager.
4. The General Manager, Tamilnadu Fisheries Development Corporation, Chennai in his counter affidavit has submitted that Mr.J.Castro and Mr.P.Karthikeyan, Managers of Madurai unit and Tuticorin unit respectively, opted for deputation. Having regard to the consequential vacancies due to deputation in the respective units and the financial conditions of the Corporation, it was decided to integrate all the three units namely, Madurai, Tuticorin and Karangadu into one unit and the then Manager, Karangadu was directed to be incharge of the integrated Madurai Unit, till the deputed persons revert back to the Corporation. He further submitted that in view of the financial condition of the Corporation, it was decided not to fill up the resultant vacancies arising due to retirement and also not to effect any promotion.
5. The respondent has further submitted that in view of the policy decision taken not to effect any promotion and incur fresh financial burden, the available person in the said cadre, viz., the second respondent was asked to take charge of the integrated Madurai Unit by the impugned order. The respondent has further submitted that the arrangement was made till the persons who opted to go on deputation to other Corporations/Boards revert back to their original posts in the Fisheries Development Corporation. The General Manager, Fisheries Development Corporation has further submitted that Mr.J.Castro and Mr.P.Karthikeyan have also returned to Fisheries Development Corporation and joined their respective posts, even during the year 2001 and 2002 respectively. In these circumstances, he prayed that the writ petition has become infructuous.
6. The petitioner in his rejoinder has submitted that one post of Manager (Production and Marketing) was vacant in the Head Office. He further submitted that as far as the financial condition of the Corporation is concerned, it has increased its stability. He further submitted that the second respondent has been recalled to the parent unit i.e. Engineering Wing and the petitioner being the senior most person working in the cadre of Deputy Manager for the past 17 years ought to have been appointed as Manager (Production and Marketing) in the Head Office. In fact, the post of Manager (Production and Marketing) was vacant in the headquarters and the same was looked after by the second respondent, in addition to his regular post of Aqua Engineer, such as Marketing, Shrimp Hatchery, pearl culture and Tsunami subject. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted that the first respondent ought to have considered him for promotion and no prejudice would have caused to any one. The petitioner has further submitted that he made a representation dated 14.9.2007 to the first respondent, requesting him to consider his case for promotion in the abovesaid vacant place, but the respondent has not considered the same.
7. By way of reply to the rejoinder, the General Manager, Tamilnadu Fisheries Development Corporation has submitted that after the return of Mr.P. Karthekeyan and Mr.J.Castro to Fisheries Development Corporation, the integrated Madurai Unit was again split into two units. He further submitted that Mr.J.Castro was appointed as Manager, Tuticorin Unit and Mr.P.Karthekeyan was posted as Manager in the existing vacancy due to retirement in the Headquarters.
8. The first respondent has further submitted that the petitioner was facing a punishment of Censure during the relevant period and therefore he was not eligible for promotion. He further submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.9.2007 received by the respondent has to be before the committee. It is also on today, there are three disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner and that the petitioner cannot claim automatic promotion. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
10. Pleadings disclose that due to precarious financial position prevailing in various corporations, the matter was placed before SCOPE (Secretaries Committee on Public Sector Enterprises) and the viability of the corporations was considered on 10.4.2000. The Committee has recommended that the Fisheries Corporation may be allowed to continue for one more year and take up the developmental activities. It was further recommended that the deputationists may be reverted to their parent department and the corporation should strive to earn profit trimming down the expenditure. Accordingly, government have issued orders in G.O. (Rt) 133, dated 18.8.2000 of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department. On the basis of suggestions, the first respondent formulated certain concrete policy initiatives and submitted the same to the said committee by letter dated 19.4.2001. Under the said policy decision, the employees under deputation from the department of Fisheries were reverted to their parent department. Further, voluntary retirement scheme was also offered to the employees of the corporation and those employees of the corporation who were willing to go to other corporations/Boards on deputation were also permitted. Among the employees of the corporation, who opted to other corporations/Board, Mr.J.Castro and Mr.P.Karthikeyan, Managers of Madurai unit and Tuticorin respectively were deputed. From the above, it is evident that due to the financial condition of the corporation, the Fisheries Development Corporation had decided to integrate all the three units namely, Madurai, Tuticorin and Karangadu into one unit and was directed the then Manager, karangadu to be incharge of the integrated Madurai Unit till the said deputationists returned back to the Corporation. It could be seen from the pleadings that the Corporation had also taken a decision not to fill up the resultant vacancies due to retirement and not to effect any further promotion. The contention that there was malafide intention on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager (Production and Marketing) cannot be accepted for the reason that the corporation had been constrained to take such a decision, due to financial constraint.
11. Pleadings further disclose that the entire arrangement
made under the impugned order was made only on an adhoc basis till the deputationists to other corporations/Boards returned to their original post. Further, the above said persons namely Mr.J.Castro and Mr.P.karthikeyan have also joined their respective posts in the year 2001 and 2002 respectively. As rightly contended by the respondents, the cause of action for continuing the writ petition does not exist and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.
12. Perusal of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that the representation of the writ petitioner dated 14.9.2007, for promotion to the post of Manager (production and marketing) has to be placed before the Committee for appropriate posts. Though the writ petition has become infructuous, consequent to rejoining of the abovesaid two individuals, the petitioner has been longing for so many years for promotion. In these circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondent to constitute the committee as expeditiously as possible and consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.9.2007 and take a decision in accordance with law and on merits and the same may be communicated to the petitioner.
13. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
aes
To
1. Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Fisheries Development
Corporation,
129, R.K.Mutt Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-28.
2. D.Kannan. Manager,
Tamilnadu Fisheries Development
Corporation, Mandapam,
Ramnad District