R JEYACHANDRAN CHELLAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed the Original Application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to call for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.MS.No.39, Transport - Department, dated 20.03.2000 and quash the same in so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned and to direct the first respondent to include the petitioner's name in the panel of Office Managers for the year 1998-99 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner as well as 3rd respondent were appointed as Clerk on regular basis in Fire Service Department. THE 3rd respondent was appointed on 10.05.1965, whereas the petitioner was appointed on 07.06.1966. Subsequently, both petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent were retrenched from the fire Service Department for want of vacancies and again the petitioner was absorbed in Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organisation as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.04.1972. THE 3rd respondent, V.Jegannatha, was regularly appointed as clerk on 10.05.1965 and he was ousted from service for want of vacancy with effect from 18.05.1966. Again, he was reappointed as Clerk on 14.06.1966 and again ousted from service for want of vacancy on 30.09.1966 and after that, he was reappointed as Clerk on 01.10.66. However, his services for the period from 10.05.1965 to 11.08.1966 were not counted and the same was treated as break in service and was not condoned. When the petitioner was appointed in Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organisation as Junior Assistant on 01.04.1972, he was subsequently promoted as Assistant on 10.07.73, whereas the 3rd respondent was promoted as Assistant only on 02.07.77. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 14.03.1988 and after completing 10 years of service, he was also granted the benefit of selection grade. Whileso, the 2nd respondent prepared a seniority list on 01.01.95. In the said seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.21, whereas the 3rd respondent was placed at Sl.No.20. Disagreeing with the seniority list, the petitioner made a representation to the Government. THE Government also, after considering the representation made by the petitioner, by letter dated 24.06.1997, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and refix his seniority in accordance with law. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 23.03.1999, placed the petitioner above the 3rd respondent. But, his name in the list of Superintendents fit for appointment as Office Manager for the year 1998-99, was not considered. THErefore, the present Original Application came to be filed, which stood transferred as writ petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.