Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4468 (MAD)

T. S. Mohan v. The Chairman & Another

2008-12-02

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had stated that at the time of the filing of the writ petition, he was working as a Revenue Supervisor at Narasothipatty Section, T.N.E.B., Salem Electricity Distribution Circle. Originally, he was appointed as a Junior Assistant, on 110. 1968. He was promoted as an Assistant, with effect from 18. 1978. Thereafter, he was absorbed as an Inspector of Assessment from 1. 1982 and subsequently, he was promoted as a Revenue Supervisor, on 10. 1991. The next avenue of promotion to the petitioner would be as an Assessment Officer. .3. It has been further stated that the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year, which had commenced from 10. 2001 and ended, on 30.9.2002. It has been further stated that the respondent Board had entered into a memorandum of settlement with the workers union, on 111. 2002, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of the assessment cum collection category and as agreed in the said settlement, the respondent Board had issued its proceedings No.(Per).B.P.(FB)No.68, Secretariat Branch, dated 211. 2002, prescribing the procedures to be adopted for filling up the promotional vacancies. The respondent Board had also issued proceedings (Per)B.P. (FB) No.69, Secretariat Branch, dated 211. 2002, sanctioning the creation of 126 posts of Assessment Officers. As per the said settlement, the 126 vacancies should be filled up by the Revenue Supervisors, who are qualified for promotion, as on 111. 2002. While so, the second respondent had called for the suitability reports, on 8. 2002, for the preparation of the panel for the promotion of Assessment Officers fixing the crucial date for promotion as 7. 2001. However, the respondents had released the panel, on 12. 2002, without including the name of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into with the employees union, on 111. 2002, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of the Assessment-cum-Collection category staff. .4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into with the employees union, on 111. 2002, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of the Assessment-cum-Collection category staff. Pursuant to the said settlement, the respondent Board had passed orders in proceedings (per) P.B.(FB) No.68 (Sectt. Branch), dated 211. 2002, by which certain guidelines were issued in respect of the promotions to be made, as an one time measure. As per the said proceedings, the Assessors, who had completed 14 years of service, as on 111. 2002, would be promoted as Regular/Supernumerary Inspectors of Assessment and the Inspectors of Assessment, who had completed 10 years of service, as on 111. 2002, would be promoted as Regular/Supernumerary Revenue Supervisors and they shall be allowed the scale of pay of Revenue Supervisors. The respondent Board had issued another proceedings, in (Per)P.B.(FB) No.69, (Sectt.Branch), dated 211. 2002, wherein sanction was accorded for creation of 126 posts of Assessment Officers and the said 126 vacancies were to be filled up by promoting Revenue Supervisors, who were qualified for promotion, as on 111. 2002. Accordingly, the crucial date had been fixed as 7. 2001, and the suitability report had been called for, on 8. 2002, for the preparation of the panel. Since the petitioner was undergoing a punishment till 30.9.2002, his name had not been included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assessment Officer. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. It has been further stated that due to administrative reasons, the panel for the year, 1999, had been prepared on a later date and the selection for promotion to the post of Assessment Officer was made only in the year 2001. Therefore, the panel for the year 2000 had not been processed. In order to fill up the 126 sanctioned posts, a fresh panel for the year 2001 had been prepared. A suitability report had been called for from the Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers. The crucial date for the panel was 7. 2001. Based on the suitability report received from the Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers, the panel for the year 2001 had been prepared from amongst the qualified Revenue Supervisors, as on 7. 2001. A suitability report had been called for from the Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers. The crucial date for the panel was 7. 2001. Based on the suitability report received from the Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers, the panel for the year 2001 had been prepared from amongst the qualified Revenue Supervisors, as on 7. 2001. Out of 161 Revenue Supervisors, 113 Revenue Supervisors were selected and orders were issued in proceedings (Per)P.B.(Ch)No.274 (Adm.Branch), dated 12. 2002. The petitioner was undergoing a punishment till 30.9.2002. Even though the period of punishment was over at the time of the publication of the panel, in the month of December 2002. However, as the petitioner was undergoing a punishment on 7. 2001, which was the crucial date, he could not be selected to the post of Assessment Officer. This fact had been intimated to the petitioner by the second respondent by the impugned letter, dated 112. 2002. 6. It has been further stated that the contention of the petitioner that the period of punishment was over on 30.9.2002 and that he should have been included in the panel is untenable. As per the proceedings (per) P.B.(Ch) No.212 (Sectt. Branch), dated 16. 1987, and Memo (Per) No.16155/P1/93-2, dated 4. 1995, the crucial date for preparation of the panel, and the programme of action for approval of the panels, in respect of the various categories of officials, had been specified. Accordingly, the crucial date for the Assessment Officers had been fixed as the 5th of July every year. Therefore, there is no merit in the claims made by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. .7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the reason for the non inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion had been stated in the Memo, dated 112. 2002, issued by the second respondent. It has been stated that on the crucial date, namely, 7. 2001, disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, were pending. However, it is clear that on the date when the panel was released i.e., on 12. 2002, no proceedings were pending against the petitioner and no punishment had been imposed on him, which he was suffering. However, his juniors had been included in the panel for promotion. Further, since the petitioner was free from punishment, from 10. However, it is clear that on the date when the panel was released i.e., on 12. 2002, no proceedings were pending against the petitioner and no punishment had been imposed on him, which he was suffering. However, his juniors had been included in the panel for promotion. Further, since the petitioner was free from punishment, from 10. 2002 and as the panel had been prepared for the posts created, with reference to a settlement, dated 111. 2002, there was no impediment to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion. On 211. 2002, on which date the 126 posts of Assessment Officers were created, the petitioner was not undergoing the punishment imposed on him. Further, the settlement did not mention that a person should not be considered for promotion, if he was suffering a punishment or if disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. Further, the settlement had come into effect only from 111. 2002. Further, according to the instructions issued by the second respondent, it has been specifically stated that, for considering the Supernumerary promotions, as on 111. 2002, a candidate shall be free from disciplinary proceedings as on 111. 2002 only. Accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been promoted as an Assessment Officer, as per the settlement, dated 111. 2002, on the orders issued by the respondent Board, dated 211. 2002, and in the panel, dated 12. 2002, released by the second respondent. .8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that all the vacancies in the posts of Assessment Officers had been filled up, upto the year, 2000. Thereafter, a settlement, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated 111. 2002, had been signed between the respondent Board and the employees unions for the creation of the 126 posts of Assessment Officers. According to the relevant Board proceedings, the crucial date for the preparation of the panel for the posts of Assessment Officers was fixed as 7. 2001. As such, the petitioner could not be considered for being promoted, even though he was included in the seniority list of Revenue Supervisors, since disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. Between 10. 2001 and 30.9.2002, the petitioner was undergoing a punishment. Therefore, he could not be considered for promotion for the posts of Assessment Officers on the crucial date of 7. 2001. Between 10. 2001 and 30.9.2002, the petitioner was undergoing a punishment. Therefore, he could not be considered for promotion for the posts of Assessment Officers on the crucial date of 7. 2001. Since there is no right vested in the petitioner for being promoted, the promotions are given based on seniority-cum-merit. However, the petitioner was eligible for being considered for promotion on the crucial date of 7. 2003. Accordingly, the petitioner had been considered and promoted. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to quash the impugned proceedings of the second respondent and to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Assessment Officers, dated 12. 2002, released by the second respondent. 10. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the respondent Board had acted in a malafide manner. As such, it is for the respondent Board to follow the relevant Board proceedings in fixing the crucial date for the preparation of the panel for promotion to the post of Assessment Officers. Since disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner on the crucial date of 7. 2001, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Assessment Officer at that time. On 7. 2002, the petitioner was undergoing a punishment and therefore, he could not be considered for promotion on the said crucial date. However, the petitioner had been considered and promoted taking into consideration the crucial date of 7. 2003. Even though the 126 posts of Assessment Officers had been created by way of settlement, dated 111. 2002, concluded under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the crucial date for consideration for the promotion of candidates to the posts of Assessment Officers had been fixed at 7. 2001. Since the petitioner was not qualified on the earlier crucial dates, on 7. 2001 and 7. 2002, he could not be given the promotion at an earlier point of time. Since the petitioner was qualified on the crucial date of 7. 2001. Since the petitioner was not qualified on the earlier crucial dates, on 7. 2001 and 7. 2002, he could not be given the promotion at an earlier point of time. Since the petitioner was qualified on the crucial date of 7. 2003, he had been considered and promoted. In such circumstances, it is clear that there is no irregularity and illegality in the procedures followed by the respondent Board in preparing the list of eligible candidates for being considered for promotion to the posts of Assessment Officers nor is there any illegality in the promotions granted to the other candidates, who were eligible for such promotions. In such circumstances, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.