K R NARAYANASWAMY Vs. GROUP GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer is for a mandamus to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as a Foreman with retrospective effect with all attendant benefits arising therefrom and as an Engineer/General Foreman with effect from 2001 with all attendant benefits arising therefrom in as much as the Community Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is not cancelled so far by any competent authority.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition as set out in the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community, one of the communities listed as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 passed by the President by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under Article 342 of the Constitution and listed as such under Central Act 108 of 1976. He was selected and appointed as Chargeman in the year 1986 in the office of the first respondent under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. At the time of interview, he produced a Community Certificate dated 5-1-1980 issued by the Tahsildar, Avinashi, the petitioner's native place. The Tahsildar issued the said certificate after verification of records and after a detailed enquiry. At the time of his appointment, as directed by the employer, the petitioner produced the Community Certificate. The petitioner completed his probation in 1987 satisfactorily. Both at the time of his appointment and at the time his probation was completed, the petitioner's community status was verified from his service records and the office of the first respondent was satisfied about the status of the petitioner's community. The respondents promoted the petitioner as Assistant Foreman in 1991. It would appear that in 1994, the first respondent had referred the petitioner's Community Certificate for verification without any valid reasons. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, conducted an elaborate enquiry, during which the petitioner produced numerous documents in proof of his claim that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community. The Revenue Divisional Officer, however, did not properly appreciate the contents of the numerous documents produced proving that the petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Community. The petitioner moved this Court in W.P.No.1469/95 to forbear the then District Collector, Coimbatore, as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, from proceeding further with regard to the verification of his community status. On 5.6.2002 this Court disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the State Government had subsequently constituted a Committee to verify the correctness of the Community Certificate and directed the petitioner to approach the said Committee. The petitioner accordingly approached the Committee. No final order has been passed so far. In 1996 itself, promotion of the petitioner to the post of Foreman became due. It is a time bound promotion. It has to be given effect to in respect of all the employees irrespective of the community to which they belong. The first respondent, on a wrong assumption that the pendency of the verification of the Community Certificate of the petitioner was a bar to promote him, kept his promotion in abeyance. The petitioner gave several representations. By communication dated 13-12-1999 the first respondent informed the petitioner that his promotion would be considered only on the completion of the proceedings relating to his community status. In the meantime, another promotion became due in 2001. The petitioner gave a representation on 8.7.2002. The first respondent not having considered the name of the petitioner for promotion with retrospective effect as Foreman in the year 1996 and further promotion with effect from 2001, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) According to the petitioner, as long as the Community Certificate issued in his favour is not cancelled, there can be no justification on the part of the respondents in denying him due promotion. The petitioner is entitled to all service benefits. The enquiry with regard to Community Certificate is only a routine enquiry, which cannot be termed to be a disciplinary proceedings. The sealed cover procedure is applicable only in respect of an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending and it will not apply to the case of the petitioner.