MARIAMMA Vs. HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Lady Security Guard in the respondent Company and she joined on March 3, 1984. Petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The majority of the Guards working in the company are Ex-service men. Petitioner's brother was in Military Service and he died on May 29, 1964 while in service. Thereafter, the petitioner sent various applications to get employment. At last the petitioner's application was recommended by the Rajya Sainik Board and on that basis the petitioner was appointed by the respondent. Petitioner has passed S. S. L. C. and later also obtained National Physical Efficiency Test Certificate. She was promoted to the post of Head Guard on August 23, 1991 and this promotion was on the basis of seniority. The next promotion to the post available to the petitioner is that of Assistant Security Inspector (ASI ). There are 4 Assistant Security Inspectors working in the company and, out of these, one C. Thankappan Chettiar retired from service on September 1, 1992. That vacancy should have been filled up by a Scheduled Caste candidate and the petitioner requested the respondent to give her promotion to the above vacancy. Her request was turned down and one Ayyappan, a general candidate, was appointed. Petitioner contends that the promotion to the post of Assistant Security Inspector is also based on seniority. Another vacancy arose on November 30, 1992 on the retirement of one P. Andrews and the petitioner filed representation seeking promotion to this post. The petitioner further contends that the respondent is taking steps to fill up this vacancy by a general candidate ignoring the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this Original Petition praying for writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Security Inspector.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. The Kerala State Productivity Council ('the Council' for short) has conducted a work study in the respondent company to assess the manpower requirements and to classify the posts. The Council recommended that in order to check woman employees there should be one post of Lady Security Guard and it was further stated in the counter that this Guard may be posted during 11. 00 A. M. to 2. 00 P. M. so that the women employees going after the duty at 2,00 P. M. , 5. 00 P. M. and 6. 00 P. M. could be checked. The report of the Council was accepted by the Board of Directors and pursuant to that the respondent had sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates. 13 candidates were sponsored and they were interviewed by a Committee. The Committee found the petitioner suitable for the post of Lady Security Guard. It is alleged that the duties of Lady Security Guard is different from duties of Male Security Guard. Only Ex-servicemen with requisite qualifications are appointed as Security Guards. Originally the qualification was pass in VIIIth standard which has now been changed as S. S. L. C. All these Security Guards now working in the company are ex-servicemen and they are trained and experienced in the duties specified for security guards. The post of Lady Security Guard was created for a specific purpose and it is separate and distinct post in the Security Department of the company. However, the petitioner was given monetary benefits of the post of Head Guard and Assistant Security Inspector. As the petitioner was appointed specifically as Lady Security Guard, she is not entitled to get promotion and she had even given monetary benefits and therefore she cannot have any grievance, It is admitted that the vacancy that arose on September 1, 1992 is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. There was no suitable S. C. candidate in the feeder category for promotion. The claim of the petitioner for promotion to the said vacancy is unsustainable and hence denied. The petitioner was appointed as Lady Security Guard for which post no promotional avenues were provided. Feeder category in the post of Asst. Security Inspector is Head Guard, and the petitioner was not granted the benefit of higher post as she had not worked as Head Guard and she was only discharging the duties of a security guard and not Head Guard. The Productivity Council pointed out that various duties are to be performed by the Head Guard. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot claim promotion to the post of Asst. Security Inspector on the basis of seniority. It is also contended that there is no violation of the Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) I heard the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel for the respondent The main contention urged by the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner was appointed as Lady Security Guard just as any other security guard of the respondent company. The petitioner got appointment as security guard being the dependent of a Jawan who died in service. Usually, the post of security guard is filled up by appointing ex-servicemen. It was not specified at the time of appointment that the petitioner would be appointed as a special case and she will not be entitled to get any promotion. Subsequently, the petitioner was given all the benefits of a Head Guard when her turn of promotion came. Now, the petitioner contends that she is entitled to be promoted as Asst. Security Inspector. The main contention urged by the respondent's counsel is that the petitioner has not worked as Head Guard. This does not appear to be a tenable contention. The petitioner was given all the financial benefits that are due to a Head Guard and the promotion to the post of Head Guard was denied on unreasonable grounds. Even according to the respondent the main duties that are to be done by an ordinary security guard is to keep constant vigilance on the main gate, factory surroundings and safeguard the property of the factory from damage, theft, pilferage etc. and also to identify trespassers/foreign elements inside the factory to check them and inform higher authorities. The duties that are to be assigned to the Head Guard are also similar in nature. In para 6 of the counter affidavit at page 7, the various duties that are to be performed by the Head Guard are mentioned. The respondent has no case that a Lady Head Guard would not be in a position to perform these duties. The only objection that was raised is that the respondent would find it difficult to post the Lady Head Guard for night duty. So, the promotion to the post of Head Guard also was denied to the petitioner without any valid ground.