P. DURAIRAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners aggrieved by the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Cooperative Development Officer vide impugned Government Order dtd. 25/10/2021 and 18/11/2021 have filed the above writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners are all working in various posts under the 2nd respondent. The 1st and 2nd petitioners though already working in the post of Cooperative Development Officer joined hands with the other petitioners, as the induction of the 3rd respondent as Cooperative Development Officer was in gross violation of the rules and in the deprivation of the other petitioners opportunity for being considered for promotion as Cooperative Development Officer. According to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent was completely ineligible and fully disqualified for being considered for appointment to the post of Cooperative Development Officer, in view of the specific prohibition and embargo imposed by the Government in G.O.(D).No.31, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dtd. 14/3/2018. The petitioners further contended that, the 3rd respondent was ineligible even as per the statutory rules and therefore the impugned order was unsustainable. The petitioners stated that the 3rd respondent was initially appointed as Junior Assistant and while working as such, sought for transfer from Madurai region to Chennai region, on the ground that his father was suffering from cancer and that he was required to be in Chennai for specialized treatment of his father. The 3rd respondent therefore made a request for transfer of appointment and permanent absorption basis to Chennai region. The said request of the 3rd respondent was sympathetically considered in accordance with the rules and G.O.(D).No.31, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dtd. 14/3/2018 was issued, transferring the 3rd respondent to Chennai region on certain conditions namely, he would be a new entrant, junior most Junior Assistant, he will be placed in the minimum time scale of pay and he shall forgo already rendered services and shall not claim any seniority with respect to the said services. In flagrant violation of the aforesaid G.O, the 3rd respondent was promoted as Assistant and as Secretary and in gross violation of statutory requirements in the feeder category, now promoted as Cooperative Development Officer by the impugned order.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 filed detailed counter. After tracing the factual background of the litigation they contended that on the request of the 3rd respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies requested the 1st respondent vide letter dtd. 3/9/2021, to pass necessary orders under Sec. 170 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 for exempting the 2nd respondent from the purview of rules 149 (1) & (3), 150(4) &(5) and 151 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society Rules, 1988. Based on the request of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the 3rd respondent was promoted to the post of Co-operative Development Officer on conditions, as stipulated in the impugned orders. According to the respondents, the 3rd respondent was promoted by following the prescribed rules under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules based on a policy decision taken on humanitarian grounds. According to the respondents, the 3rd respondent had the requisite educational qualification of B.Sc.LLB and D.Coop and he worked for 7 years as Secretary in the Thirumangalam Co-operative Thrift Society and hence, he was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Co-operative Development Officer. The respondents submitted that the impugned orders promoting the third respondent as Co-operative Development Officer were passed purely on humanitarian grounds in pursuance of a policy decision taken as per Sec. 170 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, exempting the 2nd respondent from the purview of rules 149 (1) & (3), 154(4) & (5) and 151 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. The respondents therefore contended that the impugned orders were valid and justified. The respondents hence prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as merit-less.