The Writ Appeal seeking to set aside an order relieving the appellant from his post and quashing the order was dismissed. The Court held there was no material infirmity in the impugned order and the Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 27.07.2015
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL W.A.No.1027 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
R.Manahavala Perumal .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamilnadu
Rep. By its Secretary,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Director of Municipal Administration
“Ezhilagam” Annexe Building
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3. The Commissioner
Tirunelveli City Municipal
Corporation, Tirunelveli. ..Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Appeal to set aside the Order dated 05.06.2015 made in W.P.No.370 of 2015 and consequently issue a Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in proceedings bearing Roc.No.64964/2006/IT-1 dated 05.01.2015 and quash the same as null and void and forbear the 2nd Respondent from relieving the Appellant from the post held by in the said Department till such time he is absorbed in a permanent post in the office of the 1st Respondent.
For Appellant : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran For Respondents: Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was Delivered By M.VENUGOPAL, J.]
The Appellant / Petitioner has preferred the present instant Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 05.06.2015 in W.P.No.370 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.
2.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the 2nd Respondent / Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai had passed an Order relieving the Appellant from the post held by him as “System Analyst” and in fact he was not to be relieved from the said post inasmuch as he was substantively appointed by means of a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.201 & 202 dated 30.10.1998. That apart, it is represented on behalf of the Appellant that his appointment could not be equated with the recruitment made from the Employment Exchange.
3.According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the 1st Respondent/State of Tamil Nadu being an 'Appointing Authority' had issued orders creating the post 'System Analyst' and after eligibility criteria was satisfied by the Appellant, the 2nd Respondent/Director of Municipal Administration without the concurrence of the Government could not have passed the Impugned Order dated 05.01.2015. As such, the Impugned Order passed without jurisdiction and the same is void ab-initio.
4.Advancing his arguments the Learned Counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that the Appellant is not a temporary appointee under Section 10(a)(i) of the Rules and in fact after having been appointed substantively on 06.03.2008, should not have been relieved from the post summarily. Also that it is represented that the Appellant was appointed dehors the Rules and at this stage, the 2nd Respondent should not have been passed the Impugned Order dated 05.01.2015.
5.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the 2nd Respondent had not followed the principles of Natural Justice and as such the Impugned Order dated 05.01.2015 is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
6.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant should have been absorbed in the Present Department pursuant to numerous representations made by him from 10.09.2011 till 13.12.2013 and that the Corporation of Tirunelveli had passed Resolution No.332 in the Emergency Meeting held on 28.10.2013 wherein it had permitted the Appellant to seek for permanent absorption in the Municipal Administration Directorate. Further, it is the stand of the Appellant that the 2nd Respondent / Director of Municipal Administration is now endeavouring to give a new twist by bypassing the said resolution and by ignoring the same had rejected the claims of the Appellant seeking for permanent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ absorption.
7.Yet another contention projected on the side of the Appellant is that the Government had constituted a new cadre for the purpose of a separate service under the provisions of the proposed Tamil Nadu Municipal Information Technology Rules and since the Rules were never framed, the Appellant cannot be repatriated to a Department from which he was transferred to the present service.
9.It is not in dispute that the 2nd Respondent/Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai had sent proposals to the 1st Respondent/State of Tamil Nadu for permitting absorption as well as extention and the deputation of the Appellant. But the 1st Respondent/Government had rejected the proposal of the 2nd Respondent/Director of Administration as per Letter No.(2D) No.8, dated 02.02.2015. As such, the 2nd Respondent was left with no option but to relieve the Appellant from the post of 'System Analyst' and that the Appellant had not challenged the order of the 2nd Respondent in this regard.
10.It is to be borne in mind that the Appellant in law cannot seek for absorption as 'System Analyst' in the office of the Director of Municipal Administration / 2nd Respondent either as a matter of Right or Routine, when that too he was sent on Deputation from Tirunelveli Corporation, where he was serving as an Assistant.
11.In the light of the aforesaid detailed facts as mentioned supra, the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 05.01.2015 does not suffer from any material infirmity or patent illegality in the Eye of Law. Further, this Court holds that the Learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal fails.
In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sd
To
1. The Secretary,
Muncipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Director of Municipal Administration
“Ezhilagam” Annexe Building
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3. The Commissioner
Tirunelveli City Municipal
Corporation, Tirunelveli.
W.A.No.1027 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
km(co)
kra(18/08)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Respondent had jurisdiction to relieve the Appellant from his post as System Analyst against the Government's rejection of absorption proposals.
Whether the impugned order violing the principles of natural justice and raised arbitrary.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
R.Manahavala Perumal
State of Tamilnadu
The Director of Municipal Administration
The Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
M.VENUGOPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
