Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1340 (MAD)

K. Paramanandam v. C. Shanmugasundaram & Others

2008-04-22

K.CHANDRU, P.K.MISRA

body2008
Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. N. Chandharaj, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. B. Ullasavelan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and have perused the records. 2. The writ petition is filed by K. Paramanandam, who was the third respondent in O.A. No. 151 of 2004. The said Original Application was filed by the first respondent herein (C.Shanmugasundaram) seeking to quash the order of the second respondent Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur Division dated 30.01.2004 and also to permit him as a Gramin Dak Sevak [GDS] Mail Deliverer [MD] in the same office. By the said order dated 30.01.2004, the second respondent transferred the said Shanmugasundaram as GDSMC, Vengamedu and the Paramanandam was directed to be posted as GDS MD, Vengamedu. 3. It was the stand of the first respondent that in the seniority list of GDS for the Karur Postal Division, his name appears as serial No.303A whereas the petitioners name appears as serial No.418. The petitioner joined the Department as ED staff only on 28. 1985 whereas the first respondent joined on 27.01.1981. In that view of the matter, when the first respondent was senior, he chose the post of GDS MD and, therefore, his posting was in order. The second respondent cannot entertain a petition from the petitioner and demand that he should be posted as GDS MD. 4. The CAT heard the petitioner and the respondents and finally by its order dated 112. 2004 held that the first respondent was working as GDS MD in Karur since 1997 without any interruption and after the work was transferred to Vengamedu on 210. 2003, both the petitioner and the first respondent were working as GDS MD in Karur HO. That as per the instructions given by the official respondents, the senior GDS MD will have the option to remain as GDS MD and the junior post held by the petitioner should be redesignated as GDS MC. In that view of the matter, the CAT held that the senior person should have the option of choosing the post of GDS MD and allowed the Original Application. The Department had not preferred any writ petition and it is only the petitioner who has come forward to file the present writ petition. 5. Mr. In that view of the matter, the CAT held that the senior person should have the option of choosing the post of GDS MD and allowed the Original Application. The Department had not preferred any writ petition and it is only the petitioner who has come forward to file the present writ petition. 5. Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the seniority list can only be confined to the Sub-Division or recruiting unit. He also stated that both the petitioner and the first respondent were originally in the cadre of GDS MD and the first respondent alone was some times working in other places and, therefore, took exception to the statement that he had an uninterrupted posting was wrong. 6. We are not persuaded to accept the said submission. We are of the view that the CAT relied upon the Departmental guidelines and as a matter of fact, found the first respondent was a senior and, therefore, he ought not to have been disturbed by the orders of the second respondent. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the CAT. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted in W.P.M.P. No. 1153 of 2005 will stand vacated. The Official respondents shall implement the order of the CAT within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs.