Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 574 (MAD)

S. Rajamanickam v. State of Tamil Nadu

2012-02-03

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 02.12.1999, rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Accountant with effect from 1981, i.e. the date when the immediate junior to the petitioner was promoted. 2. It is not disputed that the panel of 25 Junior Assistant Accountants was drawn for the year 1980, in accordance with the rules. Out of 25 impanelled employees, only 15 were promoted against the existing vacancies. Whereas 10 were shown as surplus. 3. The case of the petitioner is that surplus list was to last only for one year, but the respondents failed to promote those surplus employees during the lifetime of the surplus list. 4. The submission of the petitioner is that in the year 1981, disqualification of the petitioner came to an end, therefore, he was eligible for promotion to the post of Accountant, but his case was not considered. 5. The respondents, while drawing of panel 1985, did not include the name of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. It was in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Tribunal, that the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for the year 1985, though direction issued by the Tribunal was to place the petitioner at appropriate place in the panel. 6. The petitioner, therefore, sent representation against inclusion of his name in the 1985 panel, on the ground that the petitioner was eligible in the year 1981, therefore, was entitled to be placed in the panel of promotion drawn immediately after 1980. 7. The representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected, vide impugned order, which reads as under: "Lr.No.47739/T&AI/99, dated 2.12.99. From ThiruR.M.Manoharan, B.Com., I.C.W.A.(Inter), Additional Secretary to Government. To ThiruS.Rajamanickam, Accountant, Sub-Treasury, Jayankondam PerambalurDistrict. THROUGH: The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai-15. Sir, Sub: Public Services-Treasuries and Accounts Department Thiruchirapalli District Treasury Unit-Thiru S.Rajamanickam, Accountant-Inclusion of name in the Panel for promotion as Accountant for the year 1980-Representation to Govt. rejected-Reg. Ref: From Thiru S.Rajamanickam, Accountant representation dated 18.5.99. I am to invite your attention to the representation cited. The Government have examined your request in detail along with the connected records. In Trichy District Treasury unit, the name of 25 persons were included in the panel for the post of Accountant for the year 1980 in accordance with the rules. Ref: From Thiru S.Rajamanickam, Accountant representation dated 18.5.99. I am to invite your attention to the representation cited. The Government have examined your request in detail along with the connected records. In Trichy District Treasury unit, the name of 25 persons were included in the panel for the post of Accountant for the year 1980 in accordance with the rules. Out of them, only 15 persons were promoted and acted. The remaining 10 surplus persons were not promoted due to lack of vacancies and they were included in the panel of Accountant for the year 1985 and were placed below your name. Therefore, your contontion that if the surplus candidates have not been so included in the panel for 1980, your name have been included in the panel for 1981 is not acceptable, since there was NIL Panel for the years 1981-1984 also. 2. In view of the above position, your request to include your name in the panel for the post of accountant for the year 1980 above Sl.No.9 Thiru C.Arunachalam in Trichy District unit deserves no consideration on merits and therefore it is rejected as devoid of merits." 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order is totally arbitrary and suffers from vice of non application of mind, as the very basis for rejecting the representation of the petitioner is not sustainable. 9. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the panel drawn for the year 1985, wherein, 22 employees were impanelled for promotion, where the names of surplus employees of 1980 panel, did not find mention. 10. Though in the order, it is mentioned that the petitioner is placed above those 10 surplus panel employees of 1980, but this assertion is factually incorrect, as those employees were promoted subsequently, that too, after lifetime of surplus list. The order is completely silent on this point. It is not disclosed when the surplus list was exhausted, nor it is disclosed when the 10 employees junior to petitioner were promoted. 11. For the reasons stated herein-above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed, and the case is remanded back to the 1st respondent to reconsider, and pass a fresh order on the representation claiming promotion above his junior. No costs.