AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—Writ petition No: 19400 of 1996 is filed by one V. T. Loganathan challenging the order of reversion. The petitioner
joined as a Junior Assistant in the year 1973, was promoted as an Assistant in the year 1982, was further promoted as Senior Assistant in the year
1988 and was ultimately promoted to the post of Superintendent by an order dated 02.04.1996. For the post of Superintendent, the selection
committee had selected him. However, to his utter dismay he received an order dated 17.12.1996 wherein his promotion was cancelled by the
order of a Managing Director. The order does not speak of any reason. It merely directs the petitioner to work as a Senior Assistant in the same
place and service as he was working earlier before his promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the promotion was after a
selection because the post of Superintendent is a supervisory cadre post which depends on the selection and not merely on the basis of seniority.
In that view, the learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the promotion order dated 2.4.96 which clearly speaks of the promotion
being granted. One other significant thing is that he is treated to be a probationer for a period of two years.
The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore urges that this is patently incorrect, arbitrary and illegal order in law. The matters do not stop
here.
In this writ petition one A. Dhanasekaran, C. J. Vijayakumar and P. Ganesan have got themselves impleaded. Not stopping at this the said three
persons have also filed a writ petition in W.P. No: 13472 of 1998 challenging the promotion order dated 2.4.96 in favour of Mr. Loganathan, the
petitioner in the earlier mentioned writ petition. In the second writ petition viz. W.P.13472 of 1998, the prayer is in the following terms,
... it is prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue orders, directions and particular issue a writ in the nature of writ of
CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS after calling for the records relating to the order dt.2.4.96 passed by the 1st respondent to promoting the 2nd
respondent as Superintendent (liaison work) and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to promote the senior most Assistant as
Superintendent (liaison work) and award costs.
In the first place seeking for a direction by way of a mandamus to promote the three petitioners namely Dhanasekaran, Vijaya Kumar and Ganesan
is patently incorrect because there cannot be a direction to promote three persons unless there is a right to be promoted and it is already an
admitted position herein that the promotion to the post of Superintendent is by way of selection and not based on seniority.
However, without going further into the merit of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Hari Paranthaman submits that the
promotion which was awarded to Mr. Loganathan was being sought to be challenged before the industrial Court under the Industrial Disputes Act
and for that purpose the union namely the Transport Corporation Employees Union had raised an industrial dispute questioning the promotion. He
then pointed out that however the conciliation officer also reported a failure of conciliation since the earlier mentioned writ petition viz. W.P.No:
19400 of 1996 was filed and that is the reason these petitioners approached this Court by way of a writ petition. Be that as it may. The learned
counsel for the petitioners now points out that during the pendency of all these litigations, the Government has refused to refer the dispute on the
ground that these writ petitions are pending before this Court.
On this Mr. Palani, the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Loganathan urges that the order of reversion is patently incorrect whereas the
contention of Mr. Hari Paranthaman is that the promotion order itself was incorrect and therefore the reversion order is absolutely correct. On this
backdrop it will be interesting to see the stand taken by the Corporation.
In its turn the Corporation has specifically alleged that a selection committee was formed and an interview was conducted on 30.03.1996 for the
post of Superintendent wherein Mr. V. T. Loganathan was selected by an order dated 2.4.96. Therefore it is not as if there was no interview or
that the petitioner/Loganathan was not selected at all. The Corporation however relies on clause 25A or on clause 42A of the Common Service
Rules and says that an order promotion an employee can be revised by the authority to which the appeal would lie. In that view the Corporation
supports the petitioners in writ petition No: 13472 of 1998. Before that the Corporation raises a plea that those persons who were not selected
had made a representation / appeal to the Government challenging the selection of the petitioner Loganathan and the Government had come to the
conclusion that the selection was bad and had sent a letter dt. 10.12.1996 bearing No: 35/00447/PS(A)1/DATC/96 to revert Loganathan.
Now one fails to see the role that the Government can play in the whole affair. Since a plea was raised, the availability of an appeal remedy and
the appellate authority who is competent to revise the promotion orders and the relevant rules were seen. There is nothing in clause 25A and 42A
to suggest that the Government has any such power. This is apart from the fact that this letter dt.10.12.1996 is not to be found on record.
Therefore, one thing is certain that the transport corporation, even if it has bent to the Government''s wishes, has acted illegally in reverting
Loganathan without even giving him any chance. I am not here to examine the other aspects for the simple reason that an order spelling out a
reversion of a person who is selected by a selection committee cannot be passed atleast without giving a hearing to the said person or giving him an
opportunity to explain as to why he should not be reverted. After all it is not the case of the Corporation that the man was found to be incompetent
or he had in any manner committed any misconduct. That could have been a reversion if it had been done only on the grounds available in the
Rules and I do not find any such grounds available to the Corporation. In the result the Writ Petition No: 19400 of 1996 must succeed. The
impugned order of reversion is quashed and set aside and the earlier status of the petitioner is restored. However, before closing I may make it
clear that if the Corporation so feels, it may take such action as is available to it under the applicable rules. So also these observations in this
judgment shall not affect the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal if they are so taken at the instance of the petitioners in W.P.No: 13472 of
1998. That matter shall be decided on its own merits. Since W.P. No: 19400 of 1996 succeeds on the grounds which have been set out above,
the other writ petition i.e. W.P.No: 13472 of 1998 must fail and is dismissed but in the light of the observations made by me in respect of the
proposed proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed.