K ELANGOVAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT; COMMISSIONER OF TOURISM; P PUSHPARAJ; G KAMARAJAN; A VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions have been filed by Mr.K.Elangovan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto, questioning under what authority the third respondent in each of the writ petition, namely, Mr.P.Pushparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan & Mr.A.Venugopal respectively, has been holding the post of Assistant Director in the office of the second respondent.

(2.) The claim made by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner was originally appointed as Receptionist Grade-II in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Department on 26.8.81. The next higher post is the post of Tourist Officer. While so, the petitioner passed the accounts test for executive officers in May, 1988 and one Mr.T.Radhakrishnan, who is his senior, also passed the accounts test for executive officers in November, 1987. Therefore, both the petitioner and Mr.T.Radhakrishnan were the only two persons who were qualified to be promoted to the post of Tourist Officer in the year 1988. When the Government also intended to fill up the vacancies through direct recruitment and issued G.O.Ms.No.336, Information and Tourism Department dated 22.7.88 notifying the ad-hoc rules for the post of Tourist Officer in the Directorate of Tourism, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the mode of recruitment and qualification were also prescribed for making appointment to the post of Tourist Officer by direct recruitment. The qualification for the post of Tourist Officer by direct recruitment prescribes a degree from a recognised University together with the practical experience in Travel, Hotel, Journalism or Public Relations field in promotion or managerial capacity for a period of not less than three years. It also provides that if other things being equal, preference shall be given to the persons who possess a degree or a post graduate diploma in Tourism from a recognised University. While so, in 1988, when there were 4 vacancies, only two persons were fully qualified as on 1.9.88, namely, the petitioner and Mr.T.Radhakrishnan. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner and Mr.T.Radhakrishnan should have been appointed in the post of Tourist Officer, as they are already in the feeder category. But without considering the claims of the eligible persons, the Government decided to proceed with the direct recruitment and appointed Mr.P.Pushaparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan and Mr.M.Venugopal, the respective third respondent in these writ petitions by G.O.Ms.No.336, Information and Technology Department dated 22.7.88. When Mr.P.Pushaparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan and Mr.M.Venugopal were recruited against the norms and in violation of the ad-hoc rules framed for the post of Tourist Officer by direct recruitment, the petitioner sought for photo copies of the practical experience certificates of them and the other directly recruited Tourist Officers soon after their appointment. But no documents were furnished. Finally, after the Right to Information Act came into force, he made an application under the said Act on 30.3.2009 and despite the direction of the State Information Commission, the documents were not furnished. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent on 20.7.2010 to verify the genuineness of the certificates of experience submitted by Mr.P.Pushaparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan and Mr.M.Venugopal. In the meanwhile, this Court by order dated 12.4.2011 in W.P.No.19004 of 2010 directed the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 20.7.2010. Subsequently, after the order was passed by this Court, on verifying the practical experience certificates of Mr.P.Pushaparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan and Mr.M.Venugopal, the petitioner was shocked to note that they did not possess the essential practical experience in Travel, Hotel, Journalism or Public Relations field in promotional or managerial capacity for a period of not less than three years to be appointed as Tourist Officers, as mandated in the ad-hoc rules framed by the Government for direct recruitment to the post of Tourist Officer. In view of that, the petitioner sent another representation dated 26.9.2012 to the official respondents with a request to conduct an enquiry against the illegal appointment of Mr.P.Pushaparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan and Mr.M.Venugopal. Since the said representation was not considered, again the petitioner came to this Court by filing W.P.No.32178 of 2012 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent-Commissioner of Tourism to dispose of his representation dated 26.9.2012 on merits. However, this Court dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 3.12.2012 holding that the appointment should be challenged. Thereafter, the petitioner was furnished with the report of the Commissioner of Tourism dated 9.5.2013 and it revealed that they did not possess the essential practical experience in the fields as mandated in the ad-hoc rules. When the matter remained as above, even though Mr.P.Pushaparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan and Mr.M.Venugopal were appointed wrongly in the post of Tourist Officer, they are now going to be promoted as Deputy Directors by the official respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court by filing the present writ petitions with the prayer as stated earlier.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that when he was originally appointed in the year 1981 in the post of Receptionist Grade-II, which is admittedly the feeder category to the post of Tourist Officer, he has become eligible in the year 1988 along with one Mr.T.Radhakrishnan when the vacancy arose. While so, without considering the petitioner and Mr.T.Radhakrishnan to the post of Tourist Officer, when they were already found eligible, appointing Mr.P.Pushaparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan and Mr.M.Venugopal in the post of Tourist Officer is not only depriving the right of the persons to be promoted to the next higher post, but also going against the rules framed by the Government. Adding further, it was stated that although an order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1706-1707 of 1997 by order dated 28.2.97, while considering the appeals filed by Mr.P.Pushparaj and taking note of the supplementary affidavit filed by the Department on 24.2.97 that the post of Tourist Officer, which was earmarked for SC/ST candidates, was lying vacant since 1989 for non-availability of suitable candidates, directing the appointment of Mr.P.Pushaparaj, Mr.G.Kamarajan and Mr.M.Venugopal in the post of Tourist Officer, since the petitioner and Mr.T.Radhakrishnan were qualified to be promoted as Tourist Officers on the said date, they should have been appointed.