T R SHANMUGAM Vs. ANGLO FRENCH TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners herein have joined together and prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners in the post of Supervisors on and from 22.5.1987 and confirm them in that capacity with all attendant benefits.

(2.) With the consent of counsel on either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing on 28.3.2002. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, Ms.N.Mala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) According to the petitioners the respondent, an undertaking of the Union Territory of Pondicherry, invited applications on 13.10.1986 to fill up the post of Weaving Master and Trainee Supervisors. The four petitioners responded for the post of trainee supervisors since they possess he degree qualification and secretarial practice. On 22.5.1987 the respondent appointed the petitioners as Trainee Supervisors (General) and the tenure of training being 18 months from the date of joining. The petitioners were trained in various sections. Though the period of training was 18months it was extended on account of protest from the Senior staff. After extension for over 2 years, by order dated 21.12.1989 the respondent offered employment to the Post of Junior Clerk. The petitioners were given an impression and informed that they will be appointed in the post of Supervisors and they were never made to understand that they will be appointed as Junior Clerk. Having invited applications and called for the petitioners for the interview as Trainee Supervisors, there is no justification at al to appoint the petitioners as Junior Clerks. The respondent is estopped from changing the employment unilaterally. As the respondent has been promising to confirm the petitioners appointment as Supervisors, they did not rush to this court. The petitioners submitted representations for being appointed and confirmed as Supervisors, a managerial cadre and that they shall not be allowed to languish in the ministerial cadre which they never aspired or applied for. The respondent confirmed the petitioners as Junior Clerks during 1987 and had not considered the request of the petitioners for being confirmed as Supervisors. According to the petitioners they have been put to monetary loss, status and humiliation. The respondent has ultimately declined to concede to the request of the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition was filed on 1st of April 1999. This court ordered notice of motion on 8th April, 1999.