P SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-The petitioner joined services as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon under the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Animal Husbandry Department during the year 1967. Subsequently, by G. O. Ms. No. 124 Agriculture Department dated 30. 1. 1975, he was deputed to Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation for two years with retrospective effect from 1. 2. 1974. Such Department was subsequently renamed as Tamil Nadu Milk Producers Federation. From time to time, his deputation was being extended. On 22. 1. 1980, he was awarded selection Grade in Veterinary Asst. Surgeon with effect from 1. 10. 1978. Subsequently, as per G. O. Ms. No. 192 dated 8. 11. 1983, options were called from the deputationists for permanent absorption in Tamil Nadu Milk Producers federation and even though the petitioner exercised such option on 29. 6. 1984 for permanent absorption, no order was ever passed formally absorbing him in the Tamil Nadu Milk Producers Federation. On the other hand, the petitioner, while he was still under deputation, was promoted as Assistant Director in his parent Department as per order dated 15. 6. 1990. On 19. 9. 199 0, the petitioner withdrew the option given by him on 29. 6. 1984. Subsequently, the promotion of the petitioner as Asst. Director was formally communicated on 22. 1. 1991 and yet the petitioner continued to serve in the Tamil Nadu Milk Producers federation. On 14. 11. 1997, the Federation took a formal decision to repatriate all those who had come on deputation if the parent department was willing to take them back. In the meantime, since the petitioner's junior in the parent department had been promoted, the petitioner had written letter dated 5. 5. 1999 seeking for promotion. On 31. 5. 1999, the juniors to the petitioner in the parent department were included in the list of Deputy directors and one junior was further promoted as Joint Director on 19. 4. 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was reverted to the parent department by g. O. Ms. No. 126 dated 4. 8. 2000 and joined as Asst. Director on 31. 8. 2000. The petitioner had made representation to include his name in the panel for the deputy Director and then as the Joint Director. Since the petitioner was due to retire on 30. 6. 2001 and no orders had been passed on the representation dated 18. 12. 2000, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 898 of 2001 before the Tamil nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking for a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Deputy Director and Joint director as his juniors had been promoted. However, under the impugned order dated 30. 4. 2002, such O. A. was dismissed. The present writ petition is directed against the aforesaid order of the Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the petitioner had given his option to be permanently absorbed in the Tamil Nadu milk Producers Federation, he cannot modify such option at a subsequent date. It was further concluded by the Tribunal that though the applicant was given promotion by the parent department in the year 1990 and thereafter he continued under the foreign employment occupying high post drawing higher scale of pay and when his junior had been promoted and included in the panel in the year 1999, the applicant has not chosen to challenge the order "perhaps for the reason that he was continuing under the foreign employer in a higher position. He has chosen to claim promotion to the post of Deputy Director or joint Director only after his reversion to the parent department in the year 2000. " It was further concluded that the special rules relating to Animal husbandry Department indicated that to become eligible for promotion as Deputy director, one should have put in 10 years of service in Animal Husbandry department and the applicant had on the whole put in less than 10 years of service in the Animal Husbandry Department and, therefore, he was not eligible for the promotion as per the special rules.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since no specific order has been passed absorbing the petitioner in the foreign department and the petitioner had in fact given promotion in the parent department after such option had been given by the petitioner, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the option of the petitioner was irrevocable cannot be sustained in law.