M SENTHIVEL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Jeep Driver under Clause IV category. Thereafter on 16.9.1992, he was promoted as Junior Assistant. Based on the instruction of the Government that the Jeep Driver should not be promoted as Junior Assistant, the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Jeep Driver by reversion order dated 26.2.1993. Aggrieved by the said order of reversion which was passed without any notice, the petitioner challenged the order of reversion before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 12.3.2001 set aside the proceedings of the third respondent dated 26.2.1993 and ordered that he shall be deemed to have continued in the post of Junior Assistant from 16.9.1992 onwards and that he shall also be eligible for all consequential service benefits. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent has not challenged the correctness of the order of the Tribunal and the same has become final. On 18.7.2002, his probation was also declared with effect from 9.11.1994. Thereafer, the petitioner gave a representation on 4.10.2004 to the third respondent for sending him for Bhavani Sagar Training and Survey Training. Immediately thereafter, recommendation was also given for sending the petitioner for the said training. He was then given foundational training from 18.9.2001 to 13.11.2001 and also survey training from 4.12.2002 to 7.1.2003. After completing necessary training, the petitioner's name was also included in the list of Assistant in the year 2003 and he also joined duty as Assistant on 3.11.2003.

(2.) The further case of the petitioner is that according to Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rule 34(a), the probation of a candidate should be declared within two years from the date of appointment to the said post. As the petitioner's case was pending before the Tribunal, his probation was not declared within two years from the date of his appointment. After the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner's probation was also declared by order dated 18.7.2002 with effect from 19.11.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner has been making representation stating that the fourth respondent herein who is junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant was considered and he got promotion as Assistant on 21.7.1995. Hence, the petitioner preferred representation to the third respondent and the third respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he did not complete the survey training prior to 1995. Against which, the the petitioner preferred appeal to the second respondent and the second respondent also rejected his claim on the ground that he did not complete the Survey training in 1995.The first respondent also rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore he was not eligible for promotion as Assistant in the year 1995. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.