M JAYARAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to set aside the impugned proceedings of the second respondent herein dated 11. 02. 2005 of no. C2/110/ee/12092/2005-1 and the consequential order of the fourth respondent herein in ROC NO. 13395/2005/rd4 dated 14. 02. 2005 since they were issued without jurisdiction and competence respectively and may be pleased to direct the fourth respondent herein to restore the petitioner in the post which he held prior to relief on 14. 02. 2005 and may be pleased to direct the second respondent herein to pass order or orders as deemed fit to comply with D. O. Letter No. 6282/e1/05-12 dated 21. 05. 2007 of the Secretary to Government/rural Development (E1) Department Secretariat, Chennai 9 submitted to Hon'ble High Court through government Pleader so as to protect the petitioner's accrued service right in rural Development (second service) as per Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rule 9 and 9b.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the disposal of the case is as follows: THE petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer on 10. 11. 1980 in the second respondent Board and on 10. 05. 1999 he was deputed to third respondent department, subsequently, the third respondent, in his letter dated 07. 01. 2002 requested the second respondent to send a panel of 10 Assistant executive Engineers of the second respondent board with their service particulars for selection and appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer in rural development department on deputation basis. Accordingly, the second respondent, by his letter dated 05. 02. 2002 sent a panel and the third respondent, in his proceedings dated 16. 02. 2002 selected six Assistant engineers/ Special Grade Draughting Officers, including the petitioner, for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and posted them to various Districts on deputation basis. THEreafter, the second respondent, by his proceedings dated 25. 02. 2002, promoted those six persons as Assistant executive Engineers and deputed them to Directorate of Rural Department as per the terms and conditions laid down in Board's proceedings MS No. 342 dated 06. 11. 1996. THE petitioner joined as Assistant Divisional Engineer at District rural Development Agency, THEni on 02. 03. 2002 under the control of Project officer in THEni District Collectorate. THE third respondent, during the month of November 2004 intimated the second respondent that out of 52 Assistant engineers and 29 Assistant Executive Engineers, who were on deputation with rural development department, 31 Assistant Engineers and 22 Assistant Executive engineers have given their option for permanent absorption in rural development department and sought its concurrence. THE petitioner is also one among those 22 Assistant Executive Engineers. THE second respondent, taking into consideration of the dearth of hands in the category of Assistant engineers/assistant Executive Engineers in the Board wrote a letter dated 27. 12. 2004 to the third respondent thereby refused to give concurrence. While things are such as stated above, fourth respondent requested the second respondent to repatriate the petitioner to the parent department as he allegedly received complaint against him. THE second respondent passed the impugned order dated 11. 02. 2005 wherein it was stated thus:- "due to administrative reasons, Thiru. M. Jayaraman, assistant Executive Engineer (E. Code No. 7088/native Taluk Virudhunagar) TWAD board now on deputation with D. R. D. A. Madurai District is reverted back to TWAD board and posted to TWAD Board, Northern Region, Vellore against the existing vacancy. He is directed to contact the Chief Engineer, TWAD Board, northern Region, Vellore for further reposting orders and to join duty in the new station forthwith after getting proper relief from the present station. " THEreafter, the fourth respondent has passed a consequential order relieving the petitioner from the third respondent department by order dated 14. 02. 2005, which is repeated as below: "thiru. M. Jayaraman, Assistant Executive Engineer (RD) Madurai who has been reverted back to TWAD Board and posted to TWAD Board, northern Region, Vellore on administrative reasons is relieved from his duties in this District on the AN of 14. 02. 2005. He is directed to contact the Chief Engineer, TWAD Board, northern Region, Vellore for further re-postings. Consequent of his relief, Thiru. N. Pandi, Assistant executive Engineer, PMGSY, Madurai is posted to hold full additional charge of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (RD), Madurai until a substitute joins in this post and he is instructed to assume office immediately. " THE said two orders are challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he was deputed in the year 1999 and therefore his reversion to the parent department is illegal.

(3.) MR. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 reiterated the contents contained in the common counter affidavit and denied specifically that the petitioner was appointed by the third respondent in the rural development department in a substantial vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer; that the petitioner has given his willingness to absorb him in the rural development department, which was sent to the respondents 2 and 3, but the second respondent has not given its concurrence, subsequently, the second respondent, by its proceedings dated 11. 02. 2005, reverted the petitioner back to the TWAD Board on administrative grounds. Pursuant to the same, the fourth respondent has also issued relieving order to the petitioner by letter dated 14. 02. 2005. Since the petitioner refused to receive the relieving order dated 14. 02. 2005, it was served by means of affixture on his house by the Village Administrative Officer on 16. 02. 2005. A copy of the said order dated 14. 02. 2005 was also sent to the petitioner by speed post, but the same was returned by the petitioner. The sanctioned period of deputation of the petitioner also came to an end at that time, hence, he was reverted back to the parent department. The petitioner was not permanently absorbed in the rural development department and no specific order was passed by the competent authority, besides that no such Rules or Regulations was in force and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.