Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1512 (MAD)

M. C. Sheela Evanjalim v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-18

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The necessary facts for the disposal of this Writ Petition are set out hereunder:- (i) The petitioner completed her diploma in civil engineering (concrete structures and technology) in the year 1987. She was selected and appointed as Road Gang Maszdoor with effect from 12.07.1988. A vacancy arose for the post of Town Planning Inspector in the Kuzhithurai Municipality. She made an application for the said post. As the same was not considered, she filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11518 of 1990 before the Principal Seat and the same was also allowed in favour of the petitioner on 05.10.1990 for the post of overseer/town planning inspector. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was discharged from service by the Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality dated 30.11.1992. (ii) Against which, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3517 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying the respondents to appoint her to any of the eligible existing posts or next arising vacancy without reference to the proceedings dated 29.08.2001 and appoint her and extend all benefits. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 25.06.2002, was pleased to direct the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner for absorption in any one of the vacancies available or any vacancy arises in future. The petitioner has also made a request to that effect. (iii) Since the said request was not acceded to by the respondents, the petitioner onceagain approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.1392 of 2005 praying the respondents to appoint the petitioner to any existing eligible post. In the said Writ Petition, a direction was issued to the respondents. However, the respondents did not comply with the said order, instead, filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.25330 of 2005, challenging the Tribunal Order dated 25.06.2002 made in O.A.No.3517 of 2002. (iv) While so, on 03.05.2005, the petitioner gave a detailed representation to appoint her to the post of overseer or town planning inspector, as there was an existing vacancy in Kuzhithurai Municipality. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of W.P.(MD).No.25330 of 2005, on 09.08.2005, in the following terms:- “It is made clear that if the applicant is not otherwise qualified or suitable and if no vacancy is available, it is for the Municipality to intimate the same to the applicant. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of W.P.(MD).No.25330 of 2005, on 09.08.2005, in the following terms:- “It is made clear that if the applicant is not otherwise qualified or suitable and if no vacancy is available, it is for the Municipality to intimate the same to the applicant. Apart from this, there is no explanation at all for not challenging the said order for last three years since the Tribunal has passed the order as early as on 25.06.2002. (v) The petitioner shoot another representation to consider her claim for any existing eligible post. Since that was also not considered by the respondents, yet another Writ Petition in W.P.No.34131 of 2005 was filed for absorbing her as overseer in any vacancy, in view of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Order in O.A.No.3517 of 2002 confirmed in W.P. (MD).No.25330 of 2005, by its order, dated 09.08.2005. Ultimately, the Principal Seat, Madras, by its order, dated 02.12.2005, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner vide legal notice, dated 20.09.2005 based on the observation made in O.A.No.3517 of 2002, within a period of eight weeks. (vi) The first respondent by its proceedings, dated 26.06.2006, directed the Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality to appoint the petitioner in any existing vacancy and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Revenue Inspector and the petitioner was working as such. (vii) In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.8097 of 2007 before this Court praying to appoint her to the post of Work Inspector Or Public Works Overseer or Town Planning Inspector in any existing vacancy in any one of the Municipalities, as per her educational qualification. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality, recommended her name to the second respondent, namely, the Commissioner for Municipal Administration for the post of overseer, on 12.09.2007. Since there was recommendation by the respondents, the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.8097 of 2007. (ix) As there was no response on the recommendation made by the fourth respondent to consider the post of overseer, again, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.9825 of 2008, wherein, a direction was issued to the respondents to pass orders on the recommendation made by the fourth respondents. (ix) As there was no response on the recommendation made by the fourth respondent to consider the post of overseer, again, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.9825 of 2008, wherein, a direction was issued to the respondents to pass orders on the recommendation made by the fourth respondents. Ultimately, the respondents had rejected the request of the petitioner, dated 30.12.2008, on the ground that as per the Tamil Nadu Engineering and Subordinate Service Rules, 1970, at Para III, Special Rules Section 2, the post of Public Work Overseer in Group-IV can be filled only by way of promotion from Group-VII from Pipe Inspector and Group VIII-B post of Work Inspector from among those incumbents who have qualified with SSLC and Diploma in Civil Engineering. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which, they reiterated the qualification that as per the Tamil Nadu Engineering and Subordinate Service Rules, 1970, at Para III, Special Rules Section 2, the post of Public Work Overseer in Group-IV can be filled only by way of promotion from Group-VII from Pipe Inspector and Group VIII-B post of Work Inspector from among those incumbents who have qualified with SSLC and Diploma in Civil Engineering. Since the petitioner does not come under the purview of the Rules framed by the first respondent, she has not been considered for the post of Town Planning Officer. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rule relied on by the respondents is incorrect for the reason that the Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, through his proceedings in the year 2013 has clearly stated that both General Rules as well as Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970 are alone followed to fill up the posts of Town Planning Inspector. If that is so, the petitioner is very much eligible for the post, which she has sought for, in this Writ Petition. He further submits for no fault of her, she has been continuously put up her service as Revenue Inspector. He also drew the attention of this Court with respect to the proceedings of the Commissioner, dated 31.12.2008 and 03.07.2013 to show that eligible persons are transferred to the post of Town Planning Officer. He further submits for no fault of her, she has been continuously put up her service as Revenue Inspector. He also drew the attention of this Court with respect to the proceedings of the Commissioner, dated 31.12.2008 and 03.07.2013 to show that eligible persons are transferred to the post of Town Planning Officer. Therefore, there may not be any impediment for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 3.1. In support his contention, he placed a Division Bench of this Court reported in (2014) 1 MLJ 320 , C.Subramani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu. 4. The petitioner has got a chequered history. She had to obtain her rights through this Court, since 1990 onwards. After continuous legal battle, eventually, she was appointed as Revenue Inspector in the year 2006 and she was working as such. As far as the eligibility is concerned, in paragraph Np.7, the fourth respondent admits that she is qualified for the post, which she seeks for, in this Writ Petition. However, the respondents state that the rules alone are not applicable to the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, when there is a proceedings of the Municipal Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, Kanyakumari District to the effect that both General Rules as well as the Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules,1970 are followed to fill up the post of Town Planning Inspector and also in view of the facts narrated above, there is no justifiable reason to ignore the claim of the petitioner, despite the fact that all along, she has obtained favourable orders from this Court. If both the rules are applied in the case on hand, the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent in proceedings Na.ka.No. 43733/08/KI2 dated 30/12/2008 is quashed. Consequently, the second respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as Town Planning Inspector, in any one of the Municipalities, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While doing so, since the fifth respondent in this Writ Petition has no say as regards the claim of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed in respect of the fifth respondent. In the result, this Writ Petition is ordered, accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.