A PERIYASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order of the second respondent, made in Rc.9585/95/B3, dated 13.12.95, reverting the petitioner to the post of Office Assistant from the promoted post of Junior Assistant.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he was initially selected for appointment to the post of Office Assistant, through the Employment Exchange, and he had joined service on 2.6.87. By an order, dated 20.9.95, issued by the second respondent, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. All of a sudden he was reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Office Assistant stating that the petitioner and some others were promoted to the post of Junior Assistant against the 20% of vacancies reserved for the lower categories of Record Clerk and Office Assistants. It was also stated that the Office Assistants were not given training in clerical work for a period of one year to be eligible for appointment as Junior Assistant. It has also been stated that G.O.Ms.No.43, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B), Department, dated 15.2.1994, does not state that the 20% vacancies are to be computed only from the year 1994. Both, in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.90, dated 12.3.91, wherein 10% of the vacancies were reserved for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant from the category of Assistant and Record Clerks and in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 1.8.92, which had increased the vacancies from 10% to 20%, the year from which it should be counted is not prescribed.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been reverted from the promoted post by the impugned order, dated 13.12.1995, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. If the petitioner had been given an opportunity, he could have shown that he possessed the necessary qualifications for being promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the District Treasury, Trichirappali.