Allowed

K.Chellammal v. the Asst. Director of Town

Madras HC24 Jan 2017WP/1132/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an impugned order promoting a junior employee over a senior petitioner for the post of Sanitary Supervisor. The promotion was rejected in the 3rd respondent's favor due to a disputed fact regarding the petitioner's ability to ride a bicycle, a mandatory eligibility condition. The Court directed the authorities to examine the petitioner's eligibility based on this condition and

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of promotion is set aside and quashed. The petitioner is directed to be examined for cycling eligibility. Final orders to be passed within eight weeks.

K.Chellammal Vs the Asst. Director of Town — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 24.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.1132 of 2011

¶6

K.Chellammal ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs -
1.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
Erode Region, Erode-638 011.
2.The Executive Officer,
Madathukulam Town Panchayat,
Tiruppur District.
3.Mr.P.Baluchamy
Sanitary Supervisor,
Madathukulam Town Panchayat,
Tiruppur District. ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.297/2010 dated 01.11.2010 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to promote the petitioner as Sanitary Supervisor with effect from the date of the impugned order and grant him all consequential benefits and render justice.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran For 1^st Respondent : Mr.S.Navaneetham Additional Government Pleader

¶10

For 2^nd Respondent : Mrs.M.Sneha For 3^rd Respondent : No Appearance

¶11

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.297/2010 dated 01.11.2010.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has prepared the seniority list for the post of sanitary supervisor. In the seniority list, the petitioner's name has been placed at Sl.No.12 whereas the 3^rd respondent' name has been placed at Sl.No.23. But, the 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned order promoting the 3^rd respondent to the post of sanitary supervisor overlooking the petitioner's seniority without any valid reasons. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

¶14

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has submitted that a resolution has been passed by the Madathukulam Town Panchayat on 18.10.2010. On the basis of the said resolution, the impugned order has been passed. In the counter affidavit itself, it is stated that the petitioner's promotion was rejected for the reason that even though the petitioner was coming under Sl.No.12 of the seniority list, he was not eligible for promotion for the reason that the petitioner does not know to ride by-cycle. It is one of the condition for promotion to the post of Sanitary Supervisor. Hence, the petitioner's name was not considered for promotion.

¶15

In view of the submission made by the parties concerned, the eligibility for promotion to the post of Sanitary Supervisor reads as under:

¶16

VIII Std Pass.

¶17

To know cycling.

¶18

The petitioner is having required educational qualification, but, he has not known to ride bi-cycle. The said fact was disputed by the 2^nd respondent that the petitioner did not know to ride the bi-cycle.

¶19

In view of the disputed fact, the petitioner is directed to appear before the 1^st respondent and to prove that he knows to ride bi-cycle as per the eligibility conditions. The 1^st respondent is directed to examine the petitioner in accordance with the norms and to decide the eligibility of the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the same, the order passed by the 2^nd respondent is liable to be set aside, and I am inclined to pass following order:

¶21

''1. The 2^nd respondent is directed to send particulars about the petitioner to the 1^st respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

On receipt of the said particulars of the petitioner, the 1^st respondent is directed to issue notice to the writ petitioner to appear before him and examine the petitioner for the

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

promotional post. Thereafter, send the report to the 2^nd respondent for passing final orders.

¶25

On receipt of the said report from the 1^st respondent, the 2^nd respondent is directed to pass final orders within eight weeks.''

¶26

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside and the impugned order is quashed. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
Erode Region, Erode-638 011.
2.The Executive Officer,
Madathukulam Town Panchayat,
Tiruppur District.
3.Mr.P.Baluchamy
Sanitary Supervisor,
Madathukulam Town Panchayat,
Tiruppur District.
+1cc to M/S. Sneha, Advocate Sr. 4828
+1cc to Mr. P. Rajendren Advocate Sr. 4598

¶28

W.P.No.1132 of 2011 RJ(CO) Vr(24/03/2017)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Chellammal v. the Asst. Director of Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chellammal v. the Asst. Director of Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Rajendran, Vs the Chief Engineer /

S.Sathish Kumar Vs the Managing Director

P.Elango Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

D.Sakkaravarthi, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Siddhant K Aeren Vs the Director

S.Priya Vs the Chairman