Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1537 (MAD)

P. Periyaswamy v. The Registrar & Others

2005-09-14

P.D.DINAKARAN, S.K.KRISHNAN

body2005
Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to first respondent in O.A.No.526 of 2004 dated 3.1.2005 and quash the same and to direct the second and third respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Grade I electricial fitter, Train Lighting Shop with effect from 01.11.2003.) The writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd January 2005 made in O.A.No.526 of 2004, dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner herein, seeking to quash the Annual Confidential Report dated 07.01.2004 passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Grade I Electrical Fitter (Train Lighting Shop) with effect from 01.11.2003 with consequential relief. 2. In brief, the petitioner, who is working as Grade II Electrical Fitter seeks promotion to the post of Grade I on the strength of his seniority in Grade II. The case of the petitioner is countenanced by the respondents based on the Annual Confidential Report (herein after referred to as 'ACR'0) dated 07.01.2004, as weighed by the Department of Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DPC') and taking into consideration the entries made against the petitioner during the period from 31.03.2001 to 31.03.2003 as 'to be improved', the DPC came to the conclusion that the petitioner was found not suitable for promotion after scrutinizing the case of 42 employees in the cadre of Grade II Electrical Fitter including the petitioner. 3. In the counter, the respondents have submitted in detail that the decision of the Review Committee with respect to the said entry 'to be improved' was communicated to the petitioner himself on 25.05.2004. But it is claimed that the same was suppressed by the writ petitioner. It is also the case of the respondent that the procedure for the trade test for the promotion from Technician Grade II in the scale of pay Rs.4000-6000 to the Technician Grade I in the scale of Rs.4500-7000 has been modified as an assessment to be made through the ACR for the last three years as the basis instead of trade test, even though the seniority forms basis for consideration by the Railway Board through its letter dated 13.08.1999. It is under such circumstance and taking into consideration the entries made in the ACR of the petitioner as 'to be improved' during the period from 31.3.2001 to 31.3.2003, the DPC has came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion. 4. Once such decision was taken by the DPC and the Tribunal after going through the relevant records got satisfied with the decision of the Board in refusing promotion to the petitioner from Grade II to Grade I, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with the decision invoking the jurisdiction of the Judicial Review by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it is well settled that the function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review. Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process, vide Union of India v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 . 5. As we do not find any procedural error as to the decision making process, we are unable to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.