R EUCHARISTA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner first entered services in the Industries and Commerce Department as a lower division clerk on 20th June, 1955, In 1956 she became a probationer in the same department. With effect from 1812-1958 she was promoted as an Assistant. Her service were then regularised with effect from 1-9-198o and her rank in the seniority list was fixed at No. 381. She, therefore, made representation to the Government requesting that her services should be regularised with effect from 19-12-1958 and her rank in the seniority should be suitably modified.

(2.) IN or about 1965, the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) was incorporated to take over the control of the various small scale units under the Industries Department and the entire staff working in the different units were transferred en masse on deputation basis to the Corporation. As a result the petitioner also became an Assistant in the Corporation. While so, the Corporation was considering the promotion of respondents 4 to 8 as Superintendents. Therefore, on 21-4-1971 the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent, the Director of Industries and Commerce and the third respondent, the Managing Director of the Corporation apprise them of the fact that she had made a representation to the Government regarding the revision of her seniority and that, therefore, as and when final orders were passed by the Government her seniority should be revised by the third respondent. On 19-3-1973 the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent. On 15-10-74 and 16-1-1975 the third respondent drew up a panel of names for promotion as Selection Grade Superintendent. The petitioner's name was not included in the list, whereas the names of respondents 4 to 8 were included. Subsequently, on 2-5-1975 the second respondent passed orders in favour of the petitioner regularising her services in the post of Assistant in the Industries and Commerce Department with effect from 19-12-1958 and placed her seniority between ranks 211 and 212 as 211a. However, instead of restoring her seniority on the basis of the Government order dated 11-3-1975 and the proceedings dated 2-5-1975 of the second respondent, the third respondent informed the petitioner that her promotion to the post of Selection Grade Superintendent would be considered at the appropriate time and as per the practice prevailing in the Corporation. Against the order of the third respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Corporation 5-7-1975. During the pendency of the appeal the third respondent promoted her as Selection Grade Superintendent on 19-2-1976 and reverted her again as Superintendent on 21-4-1976. By a further memo dated 30-4-1976 the third respondent informed the petitioner that the panel drawn up on 15-10-1974 and 16-1-1975 for Selection Grade Superintendent could not be revised to restore her seniority. The petitioner then took up the matter in appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent by proceedings dated 22-6-1977 directed the second respondent to include the petitioner's name in the panel of Superintendent approved by the second respondent on 5-1-1967 with a copy marked to the third respondent. In spite of this on 20-5-1977 the third respondent informed the petitioner that her request to include her name in the list of Selection Grade Superintendents drawn up on 15-10-1974 and 161-1975 could not be complied with for want of two years actual service in the post of Superintendent. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 20-5-1977 passed by the third respondent, the Managing Director of the Corporation and to direct him to revise her seniority by promoting her to the post of Selection Grade Superintendent by including her name in the panel drawn on 15-101974 and 16-1-1975 as per order passed by the first respondent on 26-2-1977.

(3.) THE third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Corporation is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, according to the rules framed by the Corporation an individual should put in a minimum of two years of actual service in the category of Superintendent to be eligible to he promoted to the post of Selection Grade Superintendent. The petitioner having been promoted as Superintendent only on 19-31973 her name could not be included in the list prepared on 15-101974 and 16-1-1975, and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.