K.Manivel Vs The Secretaryto Government

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, please to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in Na.Ka. No.17530/ 2020/ K2 dt 14.12.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner to include his name in the seniority list of Night Watchman of Krishnagiri District and further direct the respondents to consider his claim for promotion as Junior Assistant and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Venkataramani, Sr.Adv. For Mr.M. Muthappan For Respondent(s): Mr. L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in

¶23

connection with the impugned order passed in Na.Ka. No.17530/ 2020/ K2

¶24

dated 14.12.2021, and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the

¶25

request of the petitioner to include his name in the seniority list of Night Watchman of Krishnagiri District and further direct the respondents to consider

¶26

his claim for promotion as Junior Assistant and grant him all consequential

¶27

2/12

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 1233 of 2022

¶30

service and monetary benefits.

¶31

Facts in brief:

¶32

The fourth respondent by resolution dated 05.09.2012, resolved to fill

¶33

up the post of Night Watchman, at Kaveripattinam Panchayat Union, in the Carpentry and Blacksmith Unit. In pursuance of the resolution, the fourth respondent addressed a letter to the third respondent, for the approval for appointment to the post of Night Watchman in the Panchayat Union. The third respondent vide letter dated 31.12.2012, accorded approval to the fourth respondent to fill up the post of Night Watchman as per the Rules and Regulations of the Government and further directed the fourth respondent to intimate the same to him. The third respondent appointed the petitioner vide Appointment Order dated 28.02.2013, in the pay scale of Rs.4800-10000 + GP 1300. The petitioner's services were later regularized vide order dated 03.03.2014, and the petitioner's probation was also declared on 18.03.2015. Long after the petitioner's appointment, regularisation and declaration of probation, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 14.12.2021,

¶34

3/12

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 1233 of 2022

¶37

holding the petitioner's appointment as irregular and seeking certain clarifications regarding the petitioner's appointment. Aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioner filed the above writ petition.

¶38

The respondents filed a detailed counter stating interalia, that there

¶39

were no binding Government Order for appointment of petitioner as Night

¶40

Watchman, in the Carpentary Unit and that the third respondent did not issue any approval order for appointment of Night Watchman in the said Panchayat

¶41

Union. According to the respondents, the fourth respondent, the Panchayat Union Council, suo moto appointed the petitioner to the said post, without the approval of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and therefore the appointment being irregular, the petitioner was liable to be terminated from service. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contention of

¶43

the respondents, that the petitioner was appointed without the approval of the

¶44

third respondent and as such his appointment was irregular and liable to be

¶45

4/12

¶46

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

¶47

WP No. 1233 of 2022

¶48

terminated could not be sustained, in the light of the third respondent's communication dated 31.12.2012, according permission to the fourth respondent to fill up the vacant post of Night Watchman. The learned counsel

¶49

for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was appointed through proper channel by following due procedures and the Government Orders, is evident from the regularisation order dated 03.03.2014, the subsequent order dated 18.03.2015, declaring the petitioner's probation and opening of the CPC account for the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that under the circumstances, the impugned order was illegal and therefore the same deserved to the setaside.

¶50

The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the contentions

¶51

raised in the counter affidavit.

¶52

I have heard both the learned counsels and I have perused the materials

¶53

placed on record.

¶54

5/12

¶55

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

¶56

WP No. 1233 of 2022

¶57

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the third

¶58

respondent having accorded approval on 31.12.2012, to the fourth respondent,

¶59

to fill up the vacant post of Night Watchman, in the Panchayat Union, the

¶60

respondent's contention that the appointment was irregular for want of approval

¶61

cannot be sustained. The order dated 31.12.2012, reads as follows:

¶62

: @bghUs; gzpaikg;g[ ? fhnthpg;gl;ozk; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; ? jr;R kw;Wk; fUkhh; myF ? ,ut[f; fhtyh; gzpaplk; ? Gzp epakdk; tH';f nfhhp Kd;bkhHpt[ tug;bgw;wJ ? bjhlh;ghf/

¶63

ghh;it : fhnthpg;gl;ozk; tl;lhu tsh;r;rp

¶64

mYtyh; (t/C) e/f/ vz; : 2989-2011-m 3 ehs; : 12/12/2012.

¶65

fhnthpg;gl;ozk; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; jr;R kw;Wk; jUkhh; myfpy; ,ut[ fhtyuhfg; gzpg[hpe;j jpU/gp/MWKfk; vd;gth; mnj mYtyfj;jpnyna gjtp cah;t[ bgw;W <g;g[ Xl;Lduhf gzp g[hpe;J tUfpwhh; vdt[k; ,t;tyF fpl';fpy; tpiy cah;e;j ,ae;jpuk; kw;Wk; fUtpfspd; kjpg;g[ U:/4.200-?w;F ? cs;sjhft[k;/ jw;nghJ kPs U:/60.00.000- bfhs;Kjy; Miz bgwg;gl;Ls;s epiyapy;. Mtw;wpw;fhd ghJfhg;g[ fUjp fhypahf cs;s ,ut[

¶66

6/12

¶67

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

¶68

WP No. 1233 of 2022

¶69

fhtyh; gzpaplk; ,Utiu epug;gg;glhjjhYk;. jw;nghJ ghh;itapy; fhQqk; fojk; K:ykhf fhnthpg;gl;ozk; tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (tC) ,ut[ fhtyh; gzpaplk; epug;g Cuhl;rp xd;wpa jPh;khdj;Jld; Kd;bkhHpt[fis mDg;gpa[s;shh;/

¶70

jw;nghJ eilKiwapYs;s murhiz kw;Wk; muR tpjpKiwfSf;Fl;gl;L ,ut[ fhtyh; fhyp gzpaplj;jpw;F gzp epakdk; bra;Jf;bfhs;st[k;/ mJ Fwpj;j jftiu ,t;tYtyfk; bjhptpf;ft[k; fhnthpg;gl;ozk; tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (tC)?f;F mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/@

¶71

A plain reading of the order shows that the third respondent approval

¶72

and directed the fourth respondent to fill up the vacant post of Night Watchman

¶73

by following the Rules and Regulations of the government and keep him informed of the same. In pursuance to the order of the third respondent dated 31.12.2021, the District Employment Officer furnished the details of the persons

¶74

including the petitioner's name for appointment to the post of Night Watchman. On 25.02.2013, the petitioner appeared for the interview and was selected on

¶75

merit for the said post. The petitioner was issued appointment order on

¶76

7/12

¶77

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

¶78

WP No. 1233 of 2022

¶79

28.02.2013 and reported for duty on 01.03.2013. The petitioner's services were

¶80

regularised on 03.03.2014. The petitioner's probation was declared on 18.03.2015, and the petitioner was directed to subscribe to the Contributory Pension Scheme. The petitioner was assigned CPS No. 754946 in acknowledgement of his subscription to the scheme. It was only at the stage of publication of the seniority list for Krishnagiri district, that the issue of petitioner's appointment was raised by the third respondent. It is pertinent to note here that the order dated 31.12.2012 is not disputed by the third respondent. The third respondent only stated that the order was not an approval order, as it only directed the fourth respondent to follow the Government Rules and Orders for appointment. If the order was not an approval order, then where was the need to follow the Government Orders and Rules for appointment. Further from the chronology of events narrated above following the approval order dated 31.12.2012, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed through established procedure, which was in force at the relevant period. Hence I find merit in the writ petition. In the light of the order passed by the third respondent on 31.12.2012, the impugned order, issued on the basis that no 8/12

¶81

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

¶82

WP No. 1233 of 2022

¶83

approval was sought from third respondent, District Collector, cannot be

¶84

sustained.

¶85

In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 14.12.2021, is

¶86

set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However,