S PREETHA Vs. SECRETARY PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed against order of the respondent dated 24.06.2010 to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioners for appointment as legal assistants in the legal department in the respondent port trust.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows : THE petitioners 1 & 2 were appointed as Assistant Superintendent and Junior Assistant respectively in the traffic department of the respondent port trust during 1985. Both the petitioners were during 2005 transferred as Superintendent and Assistant respectively to the legal section of the respondent administration and the petitioners have been working in such capacity in the legal section from April 2005. While so, the respondent issued circular dated 07.10.2006 calling for applications to fill up one post of legal assistant and in response to the same both the petitioners applied for the post and the petitioners along with two others from legal department and three others by name B.V.Giridharan, R.A.Ramesh Kumar and K.Damodaran from other department attended the interview on 07.11.2006. After the interview was over Thiru.B.V.Giridharan and R.A.Ramesh Kumar were selected as legal assistants on regular and adhoc basis respectively which compelled the petitioners and two others by name Tr.M.Ravisankar and Sukumar to file WP.307/2006 to set aside the appointment of the two candidates. THE writ petition was allowed on 8.12.2006 thereby the appointment of Giridharan and Rameshkumar was held to be invalid as it was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

(3.) PER contra, the learned standing counsel for the Chennai Port Trust would attempt to defend the validity of the impugned order on the ground that transfer of the petitioners from secretary to traffic department is only routine transfer for administrative reasons and in compliance with the official instructions contained in the relevant circulars not to keep any of the employee beyond three years in a particular place. It is further contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that they are ready and willing to consider the claim of the petitioners at the appropriate time as and when the process of filling up of the post of legal assistant is taken up.