M. Thangavelu vs The District Collector and Others

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner joined service as Office Assistant on 01.02.1974 in Sedapatti panchayat Union. He was promoted as Record Clerk on 19.05.1992. G.O. No. 963 Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 28.01.1990, provides that 10% Junior Assistant posts in the department could be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Record Clerks, if they satisfy the qualification and other conditions prescribed in the Rules.

The qualification prescribed as per the rules is a pass in S.S.L.C. The Petitioner passed S.S.L.C. in 1986. While so, pursuant to the demands made by the Office Assistants, Rural Welfare woman organizers and night watchmen to consider them also for promotion to the post of Junior Assistants, G.O. No. 189, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 10.06.1997, was issued providing the Office Assistants, Rural Welfare Woman organizers and night watchmen also to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistants in the 10% quota besides the Record Clerks,.

The 5th Respondent joined as Office Assistant on 01.04.1991 in Madurai West Panchayat Union. Based on G.O. Ms. No. 189, dated 10.06.1997, the 5th Respondent was promoted as Junior Assistant on 11.08.2005 along with 7 others, who belong to different categories. That is, in total, 8 persons were promoted to the post of Junior Assistants in 10% quota, but the Petitioner was not one among them. 3 Record Clerks, 2 Rural Welfare woman organizers and 3 Office Assistants were promoted. The 5th Respondent is one among the 3 Office Assistants, who were promoted in Madurai District as Junior Assistants. 2 Office Assistants, who were promoted as Junior Assistants were from the Department. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the promotion of the 5th Respondent as Junior Assistant as he was from the Panchayat Union.

The Respondents filed counter affidavit.

Heard both sides. I have considered the submissions made on either side.

After the issuance of G.O. No. 189, dated 10.06.1997 referred to above, the seniority list of different categories viz., Record Clerks, Rural Welfare Woman Organizers, Office Assistants and night watchmen were prepared separately. In the list relating to Record Clerks, the Petitioner''s rank is at Sl. No. 9. In the list of Office Assistants, the 5th Respondent''s rank is at Sl. No. 17. The two other office assistants viz., Subbauram and Pandiyan belong to the department and they joined as Office Assistants on 11.12.1985 and 21.12.1990 respectively, i.e. they have also joined in the post of Office Assistants subsequent to the joining date of Petitioner as Office Assistant. But the Petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant since his service in the cadre of Office Assistant was totally ignored/excluded. Record Clerks are directly appointed and also promoted from Office Assistants. If an Office Assistant is promoted to the post of Record Clerk, then he should also be included in the list of Office Assistant for the purpose of promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, otherwise, all juniors, who were not promoted as Record Clerk, would be promoted as Junior Assistants and a senior person could not get promotion. Thus, the method adopted by the Respondents ignoring the service rendered by the Petitioner as Office Assistant is highly arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In fact, as stated above, the post of Record Clerk alone formed the feeder category initially. Later, others also were included in the feeder category. But this should not go against the senior persons. The Record Clerks, who are promoted from Office Assistants, would be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, taking into account their service as Office Assistant.

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is qualified to hold the post of Junior Assistant. He has also been shown in the list of Record Clerks. But, he was not considered on the ground that while three persons were from the post of Record Clerks, he did not come within those 3 persons as those three persons are seniors in the category of Record Clerk. On the other hand, his juniors in the category of Office Assistants were promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, which is not fair.

In the normal course, this Court could have set aside the promotion of the 5th Respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to do the same as it is stated that the Petitioner has reached the age of superannuation and he has retired from service on 31.08.2008.

In these circumstances, instead of quashing the promotion of the 5th Respondent, I hereby direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to promote the Petitioner notionally as Junior Assistant, with effect from the date on which the 5th Respondent was promoted as Junior Assistant and to settle the terminal benefits pursuant to the revision of pay applicable to the post of Junior Assistant. The Respondents are directed to complete the said exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.