P. MUTHURAMALINGAM Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed in the year 1994 as a Daily wage sanitary worker. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999, the petitioner approached this court for a direction to regularize the service and absorb him. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed with time scale of pay as Revenue Assistant with effect from 23.02.2006, by order, dated 12.01.2007. However, the said order was cancelled by order, dated 01.02.2007, reverting the petitioner to the earlier post, but with time scale of pay. Again the petitioner was posted as Revenue Assistant. Thereafter, by proceedings, dated 20.07.2007, the fourth respondent reverted the petitioner to the post of cleaner, based on his educational qualification and subsequently when a vacancy arose in the year 2008, the petitioner contending that he has completed plus two made representations to appoint him either as Junior Assistant or Revenue Assistant. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the fourth respondent on the ground that the petitioner cannot be appointed as Junior Assistant or Revenue Assistant, as per provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act and Rules. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the Wit Petitions.

(2.) THE Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working from 1994 onwards and as per the Government Order, cited supra, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized and appointed to the post of Junior Assistant or Revenue Assistant. Further, after considering his educational qualification, the petitioner was appointed as Revenue Assistant, based on the decision taken in the conciliation, comprising the secretary to the District Collector, Regional Director of Municipal Administration Department and the Commissioner of the Municipality. In view of the fact that the list of employees including that of the petitioner was already sent and approved by the members, who would constitute the committee, the impugned order reverting the petitioner is bad in law, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that as per the Government Order, issued in G.O. Ms. 21 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 02.03.1998, to fill up the vacancies, persons employed in one department can be promoted to other department, based on common seniority, and therefore, sought the quashing of the impugned proceedings.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.