THANGAVELAN AND 5 ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent dated 13.1.1992 to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to give notional promotion to the petitioners in the cadre of Technical Assistant from the date on which direct recruitment was resorted to viz., 1.9.1979 in the case of Technical Assistant (Electrical) and 30.1.1981 in the case of Technical Assistant (Mechanical) with seniority and grant all attendant monetary benefits with 18% interest for the arrears of pay.

(2.) THE issue raised in this writ petition was already a subject matter of an earlier writ petition in W.P. Nos.9360 and 9362 of 1981. The said writ petitions were filed by 29 diploma holders, including the petitioners herein. They were governed by the Tuticorin Port Trusts Employees (Recruitment Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1979. The next avenue of promotions to Junior Engineers, which category consists of both Diploma Holders and Degree holders, is the post of Assistant Engineers. The scope for further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was restricted to persons possessing a degree in Engineering and consequently, the Diploma holders were held to be ineligible for promotion as Executive Engineer or to further higher posts. The complaint of the petitioners in those writ petitions was that the category of Junior Engineer consists of both Diploma holders and Degree holders and that the post carries the same scale of pay and that they also discharged the same nature of duties. They have in fact been brought under a single seniority list and consequently, when the question of promotion to a higher post arises, there cannot be any discrimination based on qualification. To deny promotion to Diploma -holders was unjust. With the result, the petitioners contended that the order of promotion of the Port Trust dated 6.8.1979 and the consequent follow up action for filling up vacancies was improper. S. Ramalingam, J., on a consideration of the contentions of both sides held that the denial of opportunity for promotion to the petitioners was not sustainable. But the learned Judge at the same time held that such a declaration would have an adverse effect of unsettling the settled affairs. It was therefore stated by the learned Judge that during the pendency of the writ petitions for over nine years, many of the respondents might have been promoted to higher posts and therefore, it was necessary to ensure that any declaration to be given by the Court should not adversely affect the respondents who have been promoted and that none of them should be reverted on the basis of the declaration. The following is the operative portion of the judgment of the learned Judge :

(3.) A perusal of the above order of the learned Judge shows that even though a declaration was given to the effect that the Diploma holders should not have been discriminated, yet the learned Judge refused to interfere with the promotions already made. The relief which was given to the writ petitioners in those writ petitions was limited to the claim of mandatory relief on notional basis and the petitioners were also given liberty to give representation to the authorities in the said context.