T SHANMUGAM Vs. CHAIRMAN MADRAS PORT TRUST CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In that writ petition, the appellant claimed quashing of the order promoting the second respondent and for a direction that he should be promoted instead of the second respondent. THE following facts will be helpful to understand the controversy.

(2.) BOTH the petitioner as well as the second respondent were serving as physiotherapists under the first respondent Madras Port Trust. While the petitioner entered the service somewhere in the year 1984, more particularly on 2.8.1984, the second respondent entered the service much before that i.e., somewhere in the year 1975. A scheme was floated by the Central Government vide order dated 16.10.1996, wherein it was proposed to give the notional promotions of one time measure to all such persons holding Class III and Class IV posts who had completed 15 years of service. The relevant Clause is as under:

(3.) THIS judgment was assailed by the learned senior counsel Mr.B.Kumar, who urged before us that there would be no question of finding fault with the promotion granted to the second respondent. The learned senior counsel very fairly contended that, in that behalf the petition was slightly mistaken. The learned counsel argued that even if the second respondent is granted the promotion, yet there was no reason as to why the petitioner could not have been granted the promotion, as the petitioner, on the relevant date had completed 10 years of service and there was undoubtedly a shortfall in the scheduled caste appointments if the standard roster had been made applicable.