Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2505 (MAD)

A. Alagammal v. The Chief Engineer H&RW & Others

2008-07-18

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. .2. It has been stated by the petitioner that she was appointed as an Assistant Draughtsman in the year 1981, having been sponsored through the employment exchange. The petitioner is a diploma holder in Architectural and Assistantship, which is a recognised qualification for the appointment. Later, she was promoted as draughtsman Grade-III, redesignated as Junior draughting officer, in the year 1983. She had continued in the said post for nearly 13 years till she was ousted from service on the ground of want of vacancy. However, she was once again reappointed during the .month of July, 1983 and she has been continuing as such. By the impugned order, dated 28. 1996, issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Assistant draughtsman on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner as draughtsman Grade-III was irregular. The impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.4928 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.22890 of 2006. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioner was possessing a diploma in Architectural and Assistantship and she was sponsored by the employment exchange. While she was recruited to the Post of Assistant draughtsman in the Highways and Rural Works Department, she was appointed to the post in proc.No.11/81/B4, dated 26. 1981, by the superintending engineer (Highways and Rural Works), Tirunelveli. She had joined the post, on 7. 1981. Pending issuance of further orders to regularise her services in the post of Assistant draughtsman, she was further promoted to the post of Junior Draughting Officer and she has been continuing in the said post from 8. 1983. Her service in the post of Assistant Draughting Officer was regularized in proc.No.20486/Nir.V2/89-30, dated 16. 1991, by the Chief Engineer (Highways), with effect from 7. 1981. 4. It has been further stated that the said orders were issued, inadvertently, on the wrong notion that the petitioner was holding a diploma equal to the diploma, in Civil Engineering. .5. 1983. Her service in the post of Assistant Draughting Officer was regularized in proc.No.20486/Nir.V2/89-30, dated 16. 1991, by the Chief Engineer (Highways), with effect from 7. 1981. 4. It has been further stated that the said orders were issued, inadvertently, on the wrong notion that the petitioner was holding a diploma equal to the diploma, in Civil Engineering. .5. It has been further stated that the petitioner is not educationally qualified to the post of Assistant draughtsman in the highways and Rural Works Department, even though she was appointed to the post of Assistant draughtsman and later, promoted to the post of Junior Draughting Officer. When it was noticed that the petitioner does not have the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant draughtsman or for the post of Junior Draughting Officer, it was brought to the notice of the Government for passing appropriate orders. The Government, after examining all the aspects of the case, had ordered the reversion of the petitioner as Assistant draughtsman, vide G.O.No.3(D) No.102 Public Works, (HM1), department, dated 15. 1996. Based on the Government .directions, orders were issued in proc.No.20486/NiruV3/89, dated 28. 1996, by the Chief Engineer (Highways and Rural Works) Chennai, reverting the petitioner as Assistant draughtsman. 6. It has also been stated that even if it can be taken that the petitioner possess the qualification to be appointed in the post of Assistant draughtsman, she has to wait for her turn in the order of seniority for being promoted to the next higher post as Junior draughting Officer. The petitioner becomes eligible for consideration to the post of Junior draughting Officer only on completion of five years of service after acquiring the necessary qualification in the category of Assistant draughtsman and hence, the temporary promotion granted to the petitioner as Junior draughting officer, on 8. 1983, is contrary to rules. Since the promotion granted to the petitioner was only of a temporary nature, there is no necessity for the respondents to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of reversion. 7. It is further stated that by taking a sympathetic view, the Government is considering the granting of relaxation of the educational qualification, required to be appointed to the post of assistant draughtsman, in favour of the petitioner. 7. It is further stated that by taking a sympathetic view, the Government is considering the granting of relaxation of the educational qualification, required to be appointed to the post of assistant draughtsman, in favour of the petitioner. If the relaxation is granted, the petitioner can continue to hold the post of Assistant draughtsman till she gets an opportunity for promotion to the next higher post. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to put forth her case before the impugned order had been passed in violation of the principles of the natural justice. Further, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. The reason that the qualification, as possessed by the petitioner, does not form part of the adhoc rules cannot be cited as a reason to revert the petitioner from the promoted post. Further, such reversion made, after the lapse of several years, cannot be accepted. .9. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the impugned order of reversion, dated 28. 1996, has been passed by the first respondent without having issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. No opportunity has been given to the petitioner to put forth her case before she was reverted from the post of draughtsman Grade-III, which was redesignated as Junior draughting officer, to the post of Assistant draughtsman. It is also seen that the initial appointment of the petitioner in the year 1981 as an Assistant Draughtsman was done based on the qualification of the petitioner, as she had obtained a diploma in Architectural and Assistantship. Her appointment was made as the petitioner had been sponsored by the employment exchange and after it was found by the respondents that she was qualified for such post. Further, the petitioner had been promoted as a draughtsman Grade III in the year 1983. However, the first respondent, had passed the impugned order, dated 28. 1996, reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Draughting Officer, to the lower post of assistant draughtsman, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had been promoted as a draughtsman Grade III in the year 1983. However, the first respondent, had passed the impugned order, dated 28. 1996, reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Draughting Officer, to the lower post of assistant draughtsman, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that the initial appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Draughtsman in the year 1981 and her subsequent promotion as a Junior draughting officer was based on her misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner. 10. It is also seen that the first respondent had found that the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed as an Assistant Draughtsman and for the subsequent promotion as a junior draughting officer, after nearly 13 years from her initial appointment. Further, from the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is noted that the State Government is considering the granting of relaxation of the educational qualification required for the petitioner to be appointed to the post of assistant draughtsman, due to the peculiar circumstances in which the issue had arisen for consideration. In such circumstances, this Court of the considered view that it would serve the ends of justice if the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 28. 1996, is set aside. However, it is made clear that it is open to the respondents to re-agitate the issue regarding the petitioners appointment as an Assistant draughtsman and her subsequent promotion as Junior Draughting Officer, if so advised, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case, in the event of the State Government deciding against the granting of relaxation of the educational qualification required for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Draughtsman in the Highways and Rural Works Department. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. No costs.