AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The petitioners 1 to 3, H. Sonnappan, R. Janakiraman and M. Sekar filed the original application on the file of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, seeking promotion as Leading Fireman, on the ground that respondents 3 to 5 namely, Jagadeesan, R.V. Radhakrishnan
and Selvaraj, being Juniors, were considered for promotion leaving the petitioners, who were seniors to them.
The 1st petitioner H. Sonnappan was appointed as Fireman on 10.11.1981 and posted to Hosur SIPCOT Fire Station in Dharmapuri District.
At the time of filing the application, he was working in Denkanikottai Fire Ftation. The second petitioner R. Janakiraman was also appointed as
Fireman on 01.04.1983 and posted to Salem Steel Plant Fire Station and at the time of filing the application, he was also working in Denkanikottai
Fire Station. The third petitioner M. Sekar was also appointed as Fireman on 01.04.1983 and posted to Attur Fire Station, Salem District and at
the time of filing the application, he was working at Hosur SIPCOT Fire Station.
The case of the petitioners is that they were placed in the seniority list of Firemen for Dharmapuri District at Serial Nos. 4, 8 and 10
respectively. On merits, though they were fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Leading Firemen and after writing the written test
and attending the interview conducted on 16.06.1998 for selection to the higher post, the petitioners were not promoted to the post of Leading
Firemen. The respondents 3 to 5 namely, Jagadeesan, R.V. Radhakrishnan and Selvaraj, who are juniors to the petitioners having been placed
below the petitioners in the seniority list of Firemen having found selected and promoted as Leading Firemen, the petitioners made a representation
dated 29.07.1998 to the second respondent pointing out the irregularities. But no response or orders have been passed thereon. The first
respondent has failed to follow the provisions of Rule 4 of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service. As per the said Rules,
the ''C'' list namely, Panel for Promotion as Leading Firemen should have been communicated, in addition to publication on the Notice Board, to
all persons by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due by specifically mentioning whose names have been included in the ''C'' list and whose
names have not been included in the said list. Since the ''C'' list was not communicated to the petitioners as per said Rules, they were not able to
know their position or placement in the said list, so as to make their representations. Secondly, there was no disciplinary enquiry or proceedings
pending against the petitioners and no currency of punishment suffered by the petitioners for not considering their case for promotion to the post of
Leading Firemen. In spite of all these things, the case of the petitioners were not considered.
On the above basis, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings passed
by the first respondent in S.O. No. 144/98(Na.Ka. No. 3985/B1/98) dated 22.06.1998 and S.O. No. 161/98(Na.Ka. No. 5237/B1/98) dated
29.06.1998 in so far as, they relate to the promotion of respondents 3 to 5 herein as Leading Firemen and they also prayed for issuing direction to
the respondents 1 and 2 herein, to promote the petitioners herein, as Leading Firemen, by virtue of their seniority in the post of Firemen in
Dharmapuri District, with retrospective effect from the dates on which their immediate juniors were promoted, with consequential benefits.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that at every stage, steps were
taken to comply with the Rules prescribed for promoting the officer to the promotional post and the promotion tests for the post of Leading
Firemen was also properly and duly conducted in accordance with the rules and the results of the said tests were also informed to the employees
then and there and their acknowledgments also have been obtained and also sent to the approval of the Deputy Director and only to the person in
the ''C'' list promotion orders will be issued. Therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in promoting the respondents 3 to 5. Further, it was also
contended that the promotional post of Leading Firemen has to be filled up only on the basis of merit and ability from among the firemen.
Therefore, when written test and interview were conducted, the petitioners were not able to do well and secure more marks than the respondents
3 to 5. Admittedly, 52 candidates participated in the written test as well as oral test. The petitioners and the respondents were also one among
them. In fact, after conducting the tests for promotion to the post of Leading Firemen, list of employees included in the ''C'' list for promotion to the
post of Leading Firemen was also submitted to the Deputy Director, Western Region, Coimbatore, for passing necessary further orders and the
Deputy Director, Western Region, Coimbatore, after considering the marks secured by the candidates, in his proceedings dated 18.06.1998,
released the list of persons for temporary promotion to the post of Leading Firemen under the ''C'' list and the same was also acknowledged. On
that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
Heard both sides. Admittedly, the post of Leading Firemen is not a promotional post based only on seniority list. For filling up the promotional
post of Leading Firemen in the office of the respondent, as per the rules, only meritorious candidates ought to be selected for the said post. Though
the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are seniors to the respondents 3 to 5, yet it was proved to be incorrect by the
counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2, wherein, it is stated that the 4th respondent R.V. Radhakrishnan is senior to the 2nd petitioner and 3rd
petitioner is also junior to 3rd respondent Jagadeesan. That apart, when written tests and oral tests were conducted, both the petitioners and
respondents 3 to 5 participated in the said tests conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 and on the basis of their performance in the tests and since
the respondents 3 to 5 have secured more marks than the petitioners 1 to 3, the respondents 3 to 5 were selected for promotion to the post of
Leading Firemen. Even before the promotion tests, namely, written test as well as interview were conducted, all the persons were informed about
the written test as well as the interview going to be conducted in Na. Ka. No. 3985/B1/89 dated 09.06.1998 of the Divisional Fire Officer,
Dharmapuri and accordingly, 52 persons had given their willingness to appear for the said tests and all those 52 persons accordingly appeared in
the tests conducted for promotion to the post of Leading Firemen. As per the Department Rules, the test and interview were conducted on
16.06.1998. In that departmental test, General Knowledge test, writing test and oral test were conducted. For each of the above tests 5 marks
were awarded. Marks for duty period and marks for rewards were also added with that and from the total marks, marks for punishments were
deducted and net marks were arrived at. Only on the basis of the above marks, grades were awarded and based on the seniority and the marks
obtained by the persons they were selected to the post of Leading Firemen. Since the petitioners were not able to get more marks to prove their
ability in the written test as well as oral test, they were placed in lower position in the ''C'' list. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in promoting
respondents 3 to 5 to the post of Leading Firemen, since they had secured more marks than the petitioners in both the written test and oral test.
Rule 36(b)(i), which is relevant, is extracted as under:
Promotions in a service or class to a selection category or to a selection grade shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority, being
considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. The inter-se-seniority among the persons found suitable for such promotion shall
be with reference to inter-se-seniority of such persons in the lower post.
A plain reading of Rule 36(b)(i), clearly shows that the claim of the petitioners for being promoted to the post of Leading Firemen, on the basis of
the seniority alone, cannot be considered since they have not secured more marks than the respondents 3 to 5 as the Rule contemplates that the
promotional post namely, Leading Firemen have to be filed up only on the basis of merit and ability and the seniority alone cannot be taken for
consideration. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the petitioners'' submission.
The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. No costs.