Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 632 (MAD)

S. Ramesh v. Chief Engineer (Personnel)

2013-01-29

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The father of the petitioner was working as Wireman in the respondent Electricity Board and he died due to illness in the year 1990, while he was serving in the Electricity Board. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Helper (Trainee) on 24.10.1998 on compassionate ground due to the death of his father under the scheme providing compassionate appointment. It is admitted that the qualification required for appointment to the post of Helper (Trainee) is VIII Standard pass. 4. When he was appointed as Helper (Trainee) in the year 1998, he was given consolidated pay of Rs.2,500/- and he was not given time scale of pay. 5. The petitioner on completion of one year training period, was appointed as regular Helper from 22.10.1999 and he was also granted scale of pay applicable to the post of Helper. 6. The next avenue of promotion to the post of Helper is Wireman/Commercial Assistant. The petitioner has chosen the post of Commercial Assistant. Accordingly, he was promoted to the post of Commercial Assistant on 22.12.2001. 7. While so, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued a Notification, dated 29.12.2006, for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, by way of internal selection. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant, through internal selection on 31.1.2007 from Commercial Assistant. 8. The petitioner was selected in the internal selection and appointed as Junior Assistant on 23.5.2007. Before he was appointed as Junior Assistant, by way of internal selection on 23.5.2007, he was given promotion as Commercial Inspector on 15.3.2007. 9. While he was serving as Junior Assistant from 23.5.2007, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2012 cancelling the internal selection given to the petitioner as Junior Assistant in 2007. To that effect, a consequential order dated 14.11.2012 was passed by the second respondent reverting the petitioner as Commercial Assistant. 10. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid orders dated 22.10.2012 and 14.11.2012 passed by the first and second respondents respectively, and to restore him as Junior Assistant (Administration) with all consequential benefits. 11. While admitting the writ petition on 4.12.2012, this Court granted interim stay of the operation of the orders dated 22.10.2012 and 14.11.2012. 12. The respondents have filed counter affidavit as well as vacate stay petition. 13. 11. While admitting the writ petition on 4.12.2012, this Court granted interim stay of the operation of the orders dated 22.10.2012 and 14.11.2012. 12. The respondents have filed counter affidavit as well as vacate stay petition. 13. It is averred that the petitioner is an I.T.I holder and therefore, he is not entitled to apply for the post of Junior Assistant through internal selection as per Note 3 to Division VII-A, B and C of Annexure-1 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. Hence, the first respondent passed the order, cancelling the internal selection of the petitioner, as Junior Assistant. 14. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 15. The only issue in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is not eligible for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistant, in view of Note:3 to Division VII-A, B and C of clause (3) in Annexure-1 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. Division VII-A, B and C provide the method of appointment to the post of Junior Assistant in category 3 of these Divisions. 16. The method of appointment is either by way of direct recruitment or by way of internal selection. The post of Office Helper is one of the categories, which is eligible for consideration to the post of Junior Assistant, through internal selection. 17. Note 3 states that the National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate candidates, who are recruited as Helpers, are not eligible for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistant. Note 3 is extracted hereunder: "National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate candidates recruited as Helpers shall not be eligible for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistants and Typists including Steno-Typists." 18. If the petitioner is recruited as Helper for possessing National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate, he is not eligible for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistant. 19. Helpers are recruited through Employment Exchange, as per Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations and the qualification for the post of Helper is that one should possess National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate and for such appointment, they are given scale of pay. 20. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was not recruited as Helper through Employment Exchange. He was appointed on compassionate ground as Helper (Trainee) based on his SSLC qualification and not for his National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate qualification. 20. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was not recruited as Helper through Employment Exchange. He was appointed on compassionate ground as Helper (Trainee) based on his SSLC qualification and not for his National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate qualification. As helper trainee, he was not given scale of pay and he was given a consolidated monthly pay that is much lesser than the pay of a Helper. 21. The statement showing the details of qualified employees of the Board for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistant, which is enclosed at page No.5 of the typed set of the respondents, makes it clear that the petitioner was internally selected as Junior Assistant, as the petitioner was appointed as Helper (Trainee) based on his SSLC qualification and the statement relating to him is extracted hereunder: 22. It is a different matter, if the petitioner is recruited as Helper for his technical qualification. Hence, Note 3 is not attracted in this case. As stated above, he was internally selected as Junior Assistant. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner was recruited as Helper (Trainee) in 1998, with consolidated pay of Rs.2,500/-, based on his SSLC qualification, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be interfered with. Further, the impugned order does not give any reason as to why the order seeks to cancel the internal selection given to the petitioner. 23. It is also argued that the petitioner is in receipt of more pay as Commercial Inspector and therefore, the impugned order would not cause any prejudice to him. 24. I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 25. The petitioner wants to take the line of Junior Assistant through internal selection, which is a provincial cadre, as the Commercial Inspector, belongs to the regular work establishment. Furthermore, the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, that too, after five years. 26. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the first and second respondents are quashed and the writ petition is allowed for the aforesaid reasons. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 and 2 of 2012 are closed.