Dismissed

R.Muthukumaraswamy v. the Managing Director

Madras HC18 Aug 2023WP/11801/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought promotion to Assistant Quality Inspector, claiming eligibility under a board resolution for seasonal employees with non-biology degrees. The Court rejected the claim, citing the petitioner's service interruption and the eligibility clause prioritizing regular employees in feeder categories before considering seasonal staff. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition is dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

R.Muthukumaraswamy Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.11801 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.11801 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

R.Muthukumaraswamy

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The Manging Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Head office, 12, Thambusamy Road,

¶11

Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

¶12

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Nagappattinam Region, Nagappattinam.

¶13

C.Alagesan ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Proceedings No. RC.No.AE7/20192/2009 dated 25.03.2009 and the same and there by, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Quality Inspector with effect from 03.04.2001 and consequently revise the pay and other attendant benefits and disburse the arrears to the petitioner.

¶15

(Prayer amended as per order dated 09.08.2011 in M.P.No.2 of 2011 in

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

W.P.No.11801 of 2011

¶19

W.P.No.11801 of 2011).

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.Thirugnanam Standing Counsel For R3 : Notice served

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of Writ of

¶23

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Proceedings No. RC.No.AE7/20192/2009 dated 25.03.2009 and the same and thereby, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Quality Inspector with effect from 03.04.2001 and consequently revise the pay and other attendant benefits and disburse the arrears to the petitioner.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

¶25

for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

The petitioner had joined in the service of the respondents in the year 1983 as Seasonal Bill Clerk. In pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board,

¶27

the first respondent decided to promote the Seasonal employees who had

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6

¶29

W.P.No.11801 of 2011

¶30

graduation in non biology subjects as Assistant Quality Inspectors. Accordingly, the second respondent prepared the seniority list and the petitioner's name was placed in Serial No.9A and he was also recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Quality Inspector. However, he was omitted in the list of appointees for the post of Assistant Quality Inspector. Thereafter, he submitted a representation and the same was rejected by the communication dated 25.03.2009, on the ground that his name was deleted from the earlier list furnished by the Senior Regional Manager, Nagapattinam, for the reason that his name has been inadvertently included while sending suitability report instead of Thiru S.Kothandapani, Seasonal Bill Clerk. Therefore, his name will be considered as and when the vacancy arise in the cadre of Junior Quality Inspector. As against the said order, the petitioner also filed an appeal and the same was also rejected by an order dated 02.08.2010.

¶31

Further, the counter filed by the first and second respondents revealed that the petitioner, though was appointed as a Bill Clerk on 04.02.1983, he was relieved from service on 08.11.1991. Thereafter, he was reappointed only on 29.03.2000. Therefore, the petitioner was not taken up for consideration for the appointment of Assistant Quality Inspector, since others were continuously working as seasonal employee. That apart, the eligibility for the post of

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 6

¶33

W.P.No.11801 of 2011

¶34

Assistant Quality Inspector is B.Sc (Biology and Non-Biology) candidates from

¶35

the regular employees in the feeder categories according to seniority and after exhausting the above candidates, the candidates from seasonal employees may be appointed to the vacancies in the post of Assistant Quality Inspector according to their seniority. Therefore, at any angle the petitioner is not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Quality Inspector.

¶36

In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶37

18.08.2023

¶38

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order mn

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 4 of 6

W.P.No.11801 of 2011

The Manging Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Head office,

¶44

12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

¶45

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Nagappattinam Region, Nagappattinam.

¶46

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 5 of 6

W.P.No.11801 of 2011

W.P.No.11801 of 2011

18.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Page 6 of 6

R.Muthukumaraswamy v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Muthukumaraswamy v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chennai Metropolitan Vs the Chennai Metro Politan

V.Radhigha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

B.S.Sujatha Vs the Chairman

E.Poongundran, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Duraimohan, Vs the Registrar of Coop.

S.Subashini, Vs the Secretary to Government