S RADHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the Petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman Grade-II I (Junior Drafting Officer) on 23.2.1980 through employment exchange, she continued to work till 5.6.1983 Subsequently, the Chief Engineer, 2nd Respondent herein, appointed the Petitioner temporarily as Draughting Officer (Draughtsman Grade-II) on 6.9.1983 Accordingly, the Petitioner also joined duty on 6.10.1983 Thereafter, for want of vacancy, she was reverted back on 31.10.1983 to the post of Junior Draughting Officer. However, she was promoted as Draughting Officer on 31.3.1984 and she was posted to work in the Estate Officer, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore on deputation. On her promotion, she joined duty on 7.5.1984 as Draughting Officer. Later on, the Petitioner made a written request dated 11.1.1989 to the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Pollachi, to regularise her services as Draughting Officer. The 3rd Respondent, by issuing order dated 3.2.1989 in proceeding No. Aatchi 4(1)/38310/89-55, again reverted the Petitioner as Junior Draughting Officer indicating that the Petitioner has become junior in one unit seniority. On that basis, she was posted as Junior Draughting Officer to the construction division in Coimbatore.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said reversion order as Junior Draughting Officer after a period of six . years, the Petitioner filed O. A. No. 1307/89 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order of reversion. The Tribunal, by order dated 16.9.1989 in a batch of connected O.A. Nos. 188/89, etc., directed to create certain number of supernumerary posts in lieu of equal number of posts in the lower category so that eligible persons, whose claims have been overlooked in view of the implementation of the orders earlier given, can be suitably protected.

(3.) Mr. Vadivelu, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in the light of the above order passed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 1307/89, the services of the Petitioner should be regularised as Draughting Officer w.e.f. 6.10.1983 the date of her joining as Draughting Officer with increment and pay protection. As the Respondents have not shown any favourable response, the Petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Application No. 447/96 in O.A. No. 1307/89. Subsequently, the Government, by issuing G.O. Ms. No. 395 PWD dated 22.6.1996 created 340 supernumerary posts of Draughting Officer w.e.f. 27.9.1982 to protect the promotion made to the Junior Draughting Officer prior to the amendment of the rules. Subsequently, another proceeding dated 30.6.1989 was issued by the Chief Engineer, 2nd Respondent herein, releasing the panel for the post of Draughting Officer for the year 1998-1999, wherein the name of the Petitioner was found in S. No. 46 in the annexure with one unit seniority No. 185. Subsequently, the Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer (General), 2nd Respondent herein, by issuing a circular No. S4 (V)/35346/96 dated 10.9.1999 informed that 340 Junior Draughting Officers are selected for promotion as Draughting Officer in the newly created post of Draughting Officer by again indicating that the Junior Draughting Officers so promoted as Draughting Officers in the supernumerary posts are eligible to get their pay fixed on par with their junior, K. Palanisamy w.e.f. the actual date of joining the post of Draughting Officer. Based on the above order, the 3rd Respondent, Superintending Engineer, promoted the Petitioner as Draughting Officer, in the supernumerary post w.e.f. the date of joining the said post.