IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.02.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.19330 of 2000 Tamilnadu State Transport Workers Union (CITU) Rep.by its General Secretary No.111/1, V.P.C. Road, Near Bus Stand, Karaikudi 623 001. Sivagangai District. ... Petitioner Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam Division III Marudhupathi, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. Rep. By its Managing Director ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and promote as Junior Checking Inspectors only those conductors who are seniors in service and having selection grade possessing minimum educational qualification of a pass in the S.S.L.C. In respect of the 8 vacancies sought to be filled up without insisting on any additional or higher qualification. For Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Pathy For Respondent : Mr.S.Jayaraman O R D E R
Heard the submissions made on either side.
2.The petitioner is a registered Trade Union. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent Corporation and also regarding introduction of higher qualification in the context to get promoted to the post of Checking Inspector, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.The petitioner-Union want a restraint order against the respondent Corporation in promoting the Conductors without following seniority and also introducing a further element of higher educational qualification.
4.The writ petition was admitted on 17.11.2000 and interim order was granted. By the interim order dated 17.11.2000, this Court held that any appointment will be subject to further orders in the writ petition. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 03.01.2003, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation informed that the appointments have already been made and but however, such appointments will be subject to final outcome in the writ petition. Even after the such a noting, the petitioner-Union did not make the selected persons as parties to the writ petition.
5.In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Memorandum of Settlement dated 24.03.1977 arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the basis for his challenge. The particular reference was made to para 15 of the settlement which reads as follows:
“15.There will be no time based review for filling up posts in Supervisory group. The number of Supervisory posts will be fixed by the Corporation. Vacancies to be filled up by promotion, will be filled up from among the working group who have the prescribed qualifications based on merit-cum-seniority.”
6.If that is the case, then the question of any promotion on the basis of seniority alone does not arise. Since the method of promotion has been mentioned as merit-cum-seniority basis, the petitioner-Union itself has agreed to the employer prescribing the criteria for merits.
7.On notice from this Court, the respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 29.01.2010. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, the method of appointment has been indicated, which reads as follows:
“4……….. First of all, from regular seniority list of conductors having SSLC qualification and as admitted in the petition, the common service Rule mentions that 50% of selection may be from among SI.Gr. Conductors with minimum general educational qualification, 50% from among the SI.Gr. Conductors who have passed from III or VIII Std. Further out of the 75% of the total above mentioned category, another 25% of the category may be filled up by way of from among the Senior Conductors (2nd level in the working group) who possess the degree in Arts/Science/Commerce. Such provisions are enumerated in para C of working Group for miscellaneous group in Common Service Rule. The modus of filling up the post of Checking Inspectors is clearly defined in the common service rule which is prevailed in all the State Transport Undertakings from 1986 and so far the same has not been contested by the petitioner union.”
Therefore, it is not as if all the Conductors who are having S.S.L.C. Qualification alone to the exclusion of others have been promoted as the quota system has been introduced between two lines of Conductors based upon their educational qualification. It cannot be said that the Conductors with S.S.L.C qualification has been totally edged out.
8.In any event, since the mode of promotion is based upon merit -cum-seniority, the criteria for merit has been laid down by the respondent Corporation not on their own but by the introduction of Common Service Rules by all the Corporation. This method has been followed by the respondent Corporation. Though the counsel for the petitioner-Union brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently in one of the Corporation, the promotions are made strictly on seniority basis without further qualification, this Court is not inclined to go into the same as it refers to some other subsequent Corporation.
9.In any event, it is suffice to state that the writ petition in the nature of a mandamus is not maintainable for the petitioner-Union in view of the provisions in the settlement and also the Common Service Rules adopted by the respondent Corporation. The writ petition lacks in merits and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
TK
To
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Kumbakonam Division III
Marudhupathi, Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District