Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 788 (MAD)

Mohinder Packir v. Director of Employment and Training Chepauk, Chennai & Another

2006-03-21

P.K.MISRA, R.SUDHAKAR

body2006
Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5076 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal claming the following relief: “……..the applicant prays for a direction to the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Junior Training Officer with ref­erence to his seniority in the post of Work­ shop Assistant, Grade-I”. 3. The claim of the petitioner before the Tribu­nal was that he became eligible for promotion as Junior Training Officer after he passed S.S.L.C., in October, 1991. In the said original application, no counter has been filed on be half of the respondents. The Tribunal, by order dated 23.12.2003, observed as follows: "In fact, the applicant has been promoted in the year 1993 as Junior Training Officer. So, the prayer has been conceded. Now, the applicant would turn round and say that he must be deemed to have been promoted as Junior Training Officer from the date on which he has passed S.S.L.C. This cannot be granted. The applicant has no doubt, acquired necessary qualification for being eligible for promotion. But only when vacancy arises, he can be given promotion and vacancy arose in 1993 when he has been appointed as Junior Training Officer. The applicant cannot ask for anything better than this. The application is ordered in these terms." 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he became eligible for being promoted as Junior Training Officer after he acquired the qualification of S.S.L.C. in the year 1991, his name has not been considered at the time when the panel for promotion was prepared for the year 1991-92 as well as the year 1992-93. In this writ petition also no counter has been filed by the respondents and therefore, it is not possible to verify as to whether any junior to the petitioner has been promoted in the panels prepared for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the order passed by the Tribunal directing the respondents to consider the question of promotion of the petitioner on par with his immediate juniors after his passing S.S.L.C. in October, 1991. This shall be done within a period of one month from the, date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly subject to the aforesaid direction. No costs. Ordered accordingly.