C. PAUL RAJ Vs. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both parties. In the above writ petition the petitioner has moved for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the second respondent therein in his proceedings D.Dis.E.7/10869/87 dated 9.3.1987 and to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 9.3.1987 insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned and consequently directing the respondents herein to perform their statutory duty by promoting the petitioner herein as Superintendent with effect from 1.11.1983 and place him in the proper placement in the inter -district seniority list of Superintendents prepared in the year 1983 and grant further promotion to the petitioner herein based on the said list with all emoluments, increments and all other benefits due to the petitioner.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are stated as follows: The petitioner was recruited as a clerk in the year 1974 in the respondent -Corporation. By the proceedings dated 31.7.1982 of the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil supplies Corporation, Nagercoil -2 and as per the proceedings of the first respondent dated 25.6.1982, the petitioner was upgraded as Assistant with effect from 31.10.1979. However, as per the proceedings dated 4.9.1985 of the first respondent, one A.K. Elumalai and K. Shanmuganathan were promoted as Assistants on 11.5.1982 and 18.10.1982 with retrospective effect from 7.8.1980 and 26.6.1980 respectively. In the same proceedings dated 4.9.1985, a panel for the promotion of Superintendent was prepared for the year 1985 wherein the name of the petitioner was not included. Aggrieved by the said panel for the promotion to the post of Superintendent, the petitioner along with other five similarly placed persons made representation on 4.10.1985. But the same was rejected by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 9.3.1987. Hence, the above writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Peter Francis learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the admitted facts that the petitioner, A.K. Elanalai and K. Shanmuganathan were promoted as Assistants with effect from 31.10.1979, 7.8.1980 and 26.6.1980 respectively, the refusal to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for the promotion to the post of Superintendent, in the absence of any charges or disciplinary proceedings or punishment against him is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the denial of such promotion chance to the petitioner violates Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.