IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.02.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
W.P.No.2196 OF 2008
......
R. Shanmuganandham .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Director of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai.25.
2. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Purasaiwakkam, Chennai.12. .. Respondents
Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the first respondent's order made in Memorandum No.35368/D2/2005, dated 22.12.2007, to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to extend all benefits both service and monetary from the date on which his immediate junior Fathimuthu Zohara was extended with the same.
For Petitioner: : Mr. L. Chandrakumar
For Respondents: : Mrs. E. Ranganayaki
Govt. Advocate (E)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to calling for the records relating to the first respondent’s order made in Memorandum No.35368/D2/2005, dated 22.12.2007, to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to extend all benefits both service and monetary from the date on which his immediate junior Fathimuthu Zohara was extended with the same.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a stenographer on 4.5.1983 and his services were regularised with effect from 25.6.1984. The next avenue of promotion from stenographer is to the post of Assistant and as per Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, 5% of post is reserved to the stenographers for promotion to the post of Assistant.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant on par with his junior viz., Fathimuthu Zohara, who was granted the benefit as above. Similarly placed persons viz., V. Sankaran, Yogambal, who were also appointed and regularised in the post of stenographers were promoted as Assistants. The petitioner gave a representation seeking promotion on par with his junior, which was rejected on 22.12.2007 and his claim for promotion to the post of Assistant was denied. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. In response to the writ petition, the authorities have filed a counter affidavit stating that the said three persons mentioned viz., Fathimuthu Zohara, Sankaran and Yogambal were improperly promoted as Assistants and that was due to inadvertence. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that their case of improper promotion will be reviewed and appropriate orders will be passed and therefore the petitioner cannot claim parity as that of the juniors, who were wrongly promoted.
5. It now transpires that what has been stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit has not happened. On the contrary, the said two persons were given further promotion as Superintendent and thereafter as Bursar. In the case of Sankaran, he was promoted as Superintendent and thereafter as Bursar in proceedings No. 33501/D1/2010, dated 8.2.2011. If the stand of the respondents that the original promotion of the stenographers viz., Sankaran, Yogammal and Fathimuthu Zohara was improper and due to inadvertence, the question of further promotion to them would not arise. This plea is taken only to defeat the claim of the petitioner with no legal basis. It also shows arbitrariness in service jurisprudence.
6. In view of the admitted fact that the juniors of the petitioner have been given further promotion, in spite of alleged improper promotion at the earliest stage, which fact is not clear, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim appears to be totally arbitrary and capricious. The respondents have chosen to grant such benefit by personal choice contrary to Rules and Procedures. Authorities hold such high post cannot grant benefits by individual preferences.
7. The petitioner in this case, who is senior to the said three persons, is rightfully entitled to further promotion and placement as in the case of three persons mentioned above.
8. In the result, the impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. This writ petition is ordered as above. Consequently, M.P.No. 2 of 2008 is closed. No costs.
ra
To
1. The Director of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai.25.
2. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic,
Purasaiwakkam,
Chennai 12