Petitioners challenging the Promotion Directorate Order claiming promotion to UDC based on aggregated service. Court held administrative delays and lack of eligible LDCs preclude claiming seniority from 2011. Petition dismissed without costs.
Petition dismissed; no direction given for retrospective promotion. No costs awarded.
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: 17.11.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKA RAMAN
W.P.No.13828 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2014
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the 8th respondent in O.A.No.310/00004/2014 with O.A.No.1687/2013 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to promote the petitioners to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with retrospective effect, from the date on which vacancy arose.
For Petitioners :: Mr.R.Syed Mustafa For Respondents :: Mr.J.Madhanagopal Rao for R1 Mr.M.T.Arunan for R2 to R4
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.)
Challenging the correctness of the order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the 8th respondent in O.A.No.310/00004/2014 with O.A.No.1687/2013, and for setting aside the same and further, seeking a consequential direction, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to promote the petitioners to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with retrospective effect, from the date on which vacancy arose, the unsuccessful applicants in O.A.Nos.1687/2013 and 310/00004/2014 have preferred the present Writ Petition.
''(i) To call for the records pertains to Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2013 vide No.Estt.11(1)/2008 issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same as highly unlawful, malafide;
(ii) To declare that the holding of posts of LDC by the respondents Nos.5 to 7 is illegal;
(iii) To direct the respondents Nos.2 to 4 to consider promotion of the applicants to the post of UDC retrospectively, from the date on which vacancy has arisen, within a time frame as the Tribunal may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of this case;
(iv) To award the cost of the application; and
(v) To pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.''
''(i) To call for the records pertains to Advertisement dated 15.12.2013 vide No.3/2013-14 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same as far as 36 Lower Division Posts concerned as highly unlawful, malafide;
(ii) To award the cost of the application; and
(iii) To pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.''
(i) The applicants are at present working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with the 2nd respondent Institution, namely, the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, for the past nearly 6 years. The applicants had earlier worked as LDC in Border Roads Organisation under the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on regular basis before joining JIPMER and if that period of service is added with that in JIPMER, they have more than 12 to 25 years of regular service, that is more than the minimum period of 8 years for eligibility for Upper Division Clerk (UDC).
(ii) While so, the 2nd respondent published a Seniority List dated 12.05.2009 in which applicants were placed below 3 persons, namely, Respondents Nos.5 to 7, viz. 1. R.Ilangovane, 2. M.Gunasekaran and 3. R.Ilango who were appointed as LDC by promotion from Group 'D' Post, after completing the typewriting Examination held on 06.01.2006, but the selection process was set aside by the Tribunal vide Order in O.A.No.31/2006 and the writ petition which was filed against the same order was dismissed by this Court. Thus, the aforesaid three persons were not having any right to continue in the post of LDC.
(iii) In the meanwhile, the respondents vide their impugned Advertisement had invited applications for 36 posts of LDC though the existing vacancies was only 10. The applicants, thereafter, came to know through some reliable sources that the respondents had arbitrarily merged the existing vacant posts of UDC with LDC and thereby arrived at the number of vacancies as 36 which according to the applicants arbitrary and unjustifiable.
LDCs in JIPMER ought to be kept in mind. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
to the post of UDC in the year 2011 itself, when the vacancies have arisen, but they were given promotion only during the year 2016. Further, the petitioners have also disputed the seniority of the respondents 5 to 7 placing above them in the UDC category and the merging of the existing vacant posts of UDC with LDC and thereby arrived at the number of vacancies to be filled up as the 36 posts of LDC.
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar
tsi To 1. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Services, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi 110 108. 2. The Director, Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry-605 006. 3. The Medical Superintendent, Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry-605 006.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners working as LDCs at JIPMER with prior service in Border Roads Organisation are eligible for promotion to UDC based on aggregated service.
Whether petitioners can claim seniority from the year vacancies arose (2011) considering past services and administrative delays.
Whether the high court should direct the respondents to promote petitioners retrospectively.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab v. Teja SinghReferred¶8
State of Punjab and another v. Teja Singh and Others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Lakshmi Narayanan and others
The Union of India
The Director, JIPMER
The Medical Superintendent, JIPMER
The Deputy Director, JIPMER
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal
HULUVADI G.RAMESH
RMT.TEEKA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
