IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.04.2011
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.15443 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
K.Muruganandham ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director,
Rural Development Department,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015.
2. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tiruvarur,
Tiruvarur District.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union,
Mannargudi,
Tiruvarur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings made in R.C.No.4774/2009/A3 (Development) dated 02.09.2009 and after quashing the same direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Office Assistant in the 3rd respondent Panchayat Union.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramachandran
For Respondents : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan,
Government Advocate for RR1 & 2.
No appearance for R3.
ORDER
The petitioner, K.Muruganandham, by filing the present writ petition, challenges the correctness of the order passed in R.C.No.4774/2009/A3 Development dated 02.09.2002, to quash the same with a direction to the second respondent to appoint him for the post of Office Assistant in the 3rd respondent Panchayat Union.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was originally appointed as Cholera Mazdoor on 01.04.1991 in the Panchayat Union, Mannargudi and was posted to Ullikottai. The petitioner joined duty on 01.04.1991 and he was temporarily posted for two months. Further, he was allowed to continue by drawing a salary of Rs.2,600/- at the rate of Rs.50/- per day for the period from 01.04.1991 to 22.12.1997. Subsequently, he was terminated from service from January 1998. Challenging the said order, an Original Application in O.A.No.374 of 1998 came to be filed. The Tribunal passed an interim order dated 19.01.1998, not to terminate him from service for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, similar O.A.No.3425 of 2002 came to be disposed of on 24.06.2002, directing the respondent to pass orders on the representation given by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of the order viz., 24.06.2002. Though there was a letter from the Standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to the Commissioner to pass orders, the second respondent / District Collector, Tiruvarur did not pass any order. Thereupon, an advocate notice was issued to the 3rd respondent, calling upon him to implement the interim direction given in O.A.No.374 of 1998. Subsequently, on abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and the same was renumbered as W.P.No.37647 of 2006. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 24.09.2007. At the time of disposal of the writ petition No.37647 of 2006, a representation appears to have been made by the petitioner’s counsel to the effect that the order subsequently passed by the Collector indicates that out of 16 petitioners, 12 persons had been recommended for a relaxation of age. But in respect of four persons, the erstwhile Counsel made a representation that the Collector issued the order of appointment in Tiruvarur District. Recording the said submission, this Court passed an order and disposed of the writ petition No.37647 of 2006 dated 24.09.2007.
3. After the order was passed on 24.09.2007 in W.P.No.37647 of 2006, on verification, it was come to know that three out of 16 persons, who had been left out by the Collector had been given appointment. Since the petitioner alone was left out, the same was informed to the respondents. On that basis, the case of the petitioner alone was sent to the Government Pleader, Chennai, for his opinion and he had also given opinion dated 15.12.2007 stating that the case of the petitioner could be considered. In spite of that the case of the petitioner was not considered, subsequently, one more writ petition came to be filed in W.P.No.15218 of 2009 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s appointment as Office Assistant in Mannargudi Panchayat Union. This Court, by an order dated 04.08.2009 disposed of the writ petition, which reads as follows:
“3. Considering the limited prayer and without going into the merits of the petitioner’s representation dated 01.12.2007, 16.07.2008, 03.07.2009 and the legal notice dated 10.07.2009, this Court is constrained to direct the respondent 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 01.12.2007, 16.07.2008, 03.07.2009 and the Legal notice dated 10.07.2009 and pass order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
When there was a direction of this Court on 04.08.2009 in W.P.No.15218 of 2009, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the representation was made by the petitioner to the second respondent for giving him an appointment. But in stead of giving him an appointment, they rejected the case of the petitioner by an impugned order and that order is under challenge.
4. The only contention raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that somehow, when the earlier O.A.No.374 of 1998, which came on transfer to this Court as Writ petition No.37647 of 2006, was taken up for hearing on 24.09.2007, a representation was wrongly made to the Court by erstwhile counsel, stating that four persons out of 16 candidates were given appointment by the District Collector, Tiruvarur. But, on verification, that instruction was not correct. However, the fact was brought to the notice to the Standing Counsel, who also represented the writ petition on 24.09.2007. Immediately, after clarifying the position that the petitioner was not given appointment by the District Collector, Tiruvarur, the learned Government Advocate has also given a letter to consider the case of the petitioner. In spite of his letter to consider the case of the petitioner, the respondents failed to pass any orders. Thereafter, a writ petition was also filed in W.P.No.15218 of 2009. Though there was an order to consider the case of the petitioner by this court, without considering the letter written by Standing Counsel from this Court and without consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15218 of 2009, dated 04.08.2009, they rejected the case of the petitioner by the impugned order. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the impugned order by giving a positive direction to the respondents to appoint him as Office Assistant.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that it is not correct to say that the petitioner is entitled to get the appointment to the post of Office Assistant for the simple reason that the petitioner came to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.374 of 1998. Though an interim order was passed on 19.01.1998, not to terminate the service of the petitioner for a period of two weeks, the petitioner failed to bring the notice of the Tribunal that the petitioner was already terminated on 13.01.1998 itself. However, when the Tribunal in O.A.No.3425 of 2002 on 24.06.2002 issued a direction to pass orders on the petitioner’s representation within a period of three months from the date of the order, the petitioner was not a party in the said O.A.No.374 of 1998, which came to be transferred as W.P.No.37647 of 2006 and finally by order dated 24.09.2007 when the matter was disposed of, the erstwhile counsel of the petitioner made a statement before this Court stating that the petitioner was also appointed by the District Collector, Tiruvarur. Thereafter, had he not been appointed, he should have immediately brought to the notice by moving an application, which he has not done so. But he has gone before the Government pleader seeking an opinion and also a letter to the District Collector, Tiruvarur. Though the case of the petitioner was considered by giving a letter by the erstwhile standing counsel, who represented the matter on 24.09.2007, once again, the District Collector considered the case of the petitioner. As the order of appointment could not be considered in favour of the petitioner, yet again, the petitioner filed one more writ petition in W.P.No.15218 of 2009, and this Court by order dated 04.08.2009 again gave another direction to consider the case of the petitioner. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was again considered, by impugned order dated 02.09.2009, for the reason that the petitioner has crossed the age limit and he was appointed only on temporary basis from 01.04.1991 till 13.01.1998. Therefore, his case for appointment to the post of Office Assistant cannot be considered, because his erstwhile appointment was only Cholera Mazdoor in the Panchayat Union, Mannargudi.
6. In fact the petitioner was originally appointed on 01.04.1991 as Cholera Mazdoor in the Panchayat Union. If that being so, I do not know, how he can ask for appointment to the post of Office Assistant. In any event, when the respondent had terminated him from service on 13.01.1998, he has challenged the said order by filing O.A.No.374 of 1998, which finally came to be transferred to this Court as W.P.No.37647 of 2006 and disposed of by the order dated 24.09.2007. His erstwhile counsel represented in this Court on 24.09.2007 that the petitioner was appointed by the District Collector, Tiruvarur. Somehow that instruction was not established by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today that whether there was a correct opinion given by the erstwhile counsel or whether the petitioner was really appointed by the District Collector. In any event, the petitioner having been aggrieved by not getting any appointment, should have immediately come back to this court and should have sought for clarification, which admittedly he has failed to do then. That apart, by filing subsequent writ petition, he has reopened the case and this Court by another order dated 04.08.2009 in W.P.No.15218 of 2008 given a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. On the basis of the order passed by this court, the respondents found that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for the reason that he has crossed the age limit and also he was asking for appointment of the post, namely, Office Assistant other than the Cholera Mazdoor. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
ogy
To
1. The Director,
Rural Development Department,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015.
2. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tiruvarur,
Tiruvarur District.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union,
Mannargudi,
Tiruvarur District