(1.) THE petitioners are working as Sanitary Inspectors in the corporation of Madras, the respondents herein. THEy challenge an order of the respondent-Corporation dated 29. 11. 1990 by which they were posted exclusively to attend the duty in the burial grounds. In the impugned order it is stated that the petitioners are immediately relieved from the normal divisional duties and theyshould (1) supervise the work of staff posted in the burial ground, (2)collect the details of the deceased person, (3) supervise the works of vet-tiyans, (4) collect the cremation or burial charges from the public as fixed by the Corporation and remit the same into Corporation treasury then and there, (5) keep the burial ground in clean and tidy manner and (6) particularly enforce strict discipline among the Vettiyans and to try to avoid complaints and criticism from the public.
(2.) THE petitioners alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that paragraph 716 of the Madras City Municipal code (hereinafter referred to as'the Code') deals with management of burial grounds, that paragraph 887 of the Code prescribes the duties of Sanitary Inspectors, that 20 functions are enumerated in paragraph 887 of the Code and that the petitioners have been asked to relieve other duties and that it amounts to a demotion to them. It is also alleged in the affidavit that inspecting a burial ground is one of the functions of the sanitary Inspectors, that Sanitary Inspectors have got technical qualifications and that the impugned order passed by the respondent-Corporation in so far as it directs the petitioners to look after a burial ground, relieving from other divisional duties is too harsh. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the action of the respondent-Corporation asking the petitioners to do the functions which are really that of the peons, which is clear from what is described in paragraphs 716 of the Code and that it amounts to a demotion to the petitioners to Class IV posts whereas the petitioners are belonging to Class III. It is also alleged in the affidavit that when the Code prescribes certain conditions of service, it is not correct on the part of the Corporation to change it by the impugned order of the respondent-Corporation. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the action of the respondent-Corporation is arbitrary and violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, since the petitioners have been picked up when there are other Sanitary Inspectors with the respondent-Corporation.
(3.) HAVING considered the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot have any grievance at all by the impugned order. It is seen that the Corporation Code, which is being followed by the Corporation, even after passing the enactment, provides for the duties of the Sanitary Inspectors and the management of the burial grounds. Para. 724 of the Code provides for the duties of the Sanitary inspectors in regard to the burial or burning grounds. Sec. 13 of the Code deals with'burial and burning grounds'starting from paras. 714 to 724. Paragraph 715 happens to be by-laws framed by the Corporation under Sec. 349 (22) (a) of the Madras City Municipal Act IV of 1919 for the regulation of burial and burning grounds and other places for the disposal of corpses. In so far as the management of the burial ground is concerned, it is provided in para. 716 of the Code under which it is seen that there is a Corporation peon-incharge of each burial and burning ground, who has to keep an account in his register of all cremations and he is required to be on duty during certain hours. In the case of corpses of paupers, with regard to their burial, it is provided in para. 717 of the code. Para. 719 speaks of the duties of Vettiyans, who shall be on duty at the burial and burning grounds. So a reading of Sec. 13 of the Code which provides'burial and burning grounds'shows that the Sanitary Inspectors of the divisions concerned are in immediate charge of the burial and burning grounds in them and they have to frequently inspect them to see that the duties entrusted to the peons, gardeners and the vettiyans are being carried out properly. It is one of the duties of the Sanitary Inspectors that they shall report in time to the health Officer the necessity for opening fresh burial or burning grounds. It is one of the duties of the Sanitary Inspectors to suggest improvements where necessary for the burial and burning grounds in their charge. In my view, para. 724 of the Code is nonstatutory and it shows that the Sanitary Inspectors are in immediate charge of the burial or burning grounds in them and they are expected to inspect them and to supervise the duties of Vettiyans, peons and gardeners of the said burial grounds. What has been done in the case before me is that the petitioners are permanently posted in two major burial grounds in the City, relieving from their normal divisional duties, by the impugned order dated 29. 11. 1990. There cannot be any doubt that the Commissioner has got the power under Sec. 91 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 to control the establishment of the Corporation subject to the provisions of the act and to the Rules, by-laws and regulations for the time being in force and the Commissioner shall prescribe the duties of the corporation establishment and exercise supervision and control over their acts and proceedings. In so far as the duties of the Sanitary Inspectors are concerned, no Rule or by-law is brought to my notice as one passed even after the enactment of the Madras City municipal (Corporation) Act, 1919. Learned counsel on either side has not brought to my notice any Rule or by-law which controls the duties of the Sanitary inspectors a part from para. 724 of the Code. The Corporation Code seems to have been complied with as it is seen from Vol. 1 of the Madras Corporation Code. What all is stated in the Code is not merely a recital of the existing procedure. So it cannot be doubted that what is contained in the Code is not statutory in character. It is well settled that any violation of any nonstatutory direction cannot be made a cause of action to approach the High court under Art. 226 of the Constitution unless the provisions of the constitution are violated especially Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation it cannot be disputed that there is no reduction in rank of the petitioners, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Surely, there is no reduction of emoluments. Only the duties are changed. Even assuming that there is violation of the provisions of the Code, I do not think the writ petition can be maintained for this purpose, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The case relied on by Miss. R. Vaigai, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not relevant. In that case the apex court of the land was concerned with the public servant who was not given posting to the status, the ratio decided in that case is as follows: (at p. 79 )'. . . . The scheme postulates that every public officer has to be given some posting commensurate to his status and circumstances should be so created that he would be functioning so as to render commensurate service in lieu of the benefits received by him from the Slate. If an officer does not behave as required of him under the law he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue an officer against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the consolidated Fund. . . .' ; The case before me is entirely different and I do not think the principle laid down by the Apex Court of the land in the above mentioned decision can be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In so far as 1 come to the conclusion that there is no reduction in rank, any variation of the provision in the Code will not give any cause of action to these petitioners. There are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.