V SUNIL Vs. TRACO CABLE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is presently employed as a semi-skilled worker in Traco Cable Company Limited, the first respondent herein. THE company entered into Ext.P1 memorandum of settlement with its workers on 12.2.1997 as per which it was agreed by and between the parties that promotion of workmen will be according to the promotion policy which forms part of the agreement. In the promotion policy which forms part of Ext.P1 settlement it was stipulated that vacancies in the designated posts will be filled up by selection from semi skilled employees having the required qualification and two years service experience by internal notification as indicated in Annexure II to the agreement. THE post of Record Keeper/Assistant Record Keeper (SS/US) was one such designated post.

(2.) PURSUANT to Ext.P1 settlement, the Managing Director of the first respondent company issued Ext.P2 notice dated 29-7-2004 inviting applications from permanent employees of the company having the requisite qualification and service experience for filling up one vacancy of Record Keeper in the registered office of the company. The applications were to be routed through the respective Unit Heads. The last date for submission of applications was 14.8.2004. It was stipulated that applicants who possess the prescribed qualification with experience will be called for interview. PURSUANT to Ext.P2 notification, the petitioner and eight others applied. All of them were found qualified and called to attend the interview held on 25-10-2004. Three out of the nine candidates did not appear for interview. The remaining six candidates including the petitioner appeared for the interview. The Interview Committee interviewed them and ranked them and thereafter submitted Ext.P3 report to the Managing Director of the first respondent company. The petitioner was ranked first.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 27.10.2008. THE petitioner has produced along with the reply affidavit, the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent company in W.P(C)No.32937 of 2004 (Ext.P8) wherein it is stated that the vacancy of Record Keeper notified as per Ext.P2 is in the registered office of the company and that to reduce the financial commitment the company has resorted to internal recruitment. It is also stated therein that the post of Record Keeper comes under the worker category, that the Interview Board had interviewed the candidates and that only those who are qualified were called for the interview. THE petitioner also produced the additional affidavit filed by the company in W.P(C)No.32937 of 2004 (Ext.P9), along with which the rank list prepared by the Interview Board was also produced. In Ext.P9 it was stated that the Managing Director has approved the list, that directions were also given to issue the appointment order as per the rank list, that in view of the order of stay passed by this court, the appointment order was not issued. THE petitioner has also produced Ext.P10 office order dated 8.5.2006 issued by the Managing Director of the first respondent company wherein it is stated that in view of the pendency of W.P (C)No.32937 of 2004 the third respondent will continue to work as Record Keeper in the semi skilled category till this Court takes a decision in the writ petition, that in the event of the decision being unfavourable to the company he will continue in the category of semi skilled with the nature of work as Record Keeper and that he will not be eligible for promotion as long as he continues to work as Record Keeper. THE petitioner has also produced Ext.P11 memorandum of settlement arrived at between the company and its workmen which is referred to in Ext.P10. THE company has filed a rejoinder affidavit and produced along with it as Ext.R2(c), the application dated 17.4.2006 submitted by the third respondent, which is referred to in Ext.P10. It is also stated relying on Ext.R2 (d) order dated 30.10.2006 that Ext.P10 order was cancelled, but it could not be acted upon in view of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P(C)No.28649 of 2006 and connected cases.