M MURUGAVEL Vs. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner had stated that he is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and has completed the course in the year 1986. He belongs to a Most Backward Community. He was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Work Inspector in the Salem Municipality, in the year 1991, which was later upgraded as a Corporation in the year 1994. The petitioner was appointed as a work Inspector, on 10. 1. 91. The basic qualification for being appointed in the said post is a Diploma in Civil Engineering. Later, the petitioner was ousted from the post of the Work Inspector, on 24. 8. 92. The petitioner had filed an application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 5743 of 1992. By an order, dated 8. 6. 94, the Tribunal had directed the appointment of the petitioner as a work inspector in the Salem Municipality, either in the existing vacancy or in the future vacancies. Based on the directions issued by the Tribunal, the second respondent had issued an order, in G. O. Ms. No. 107, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 25. 3. 96 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Work Inspector. Accordingly, the first respondent had appointed the petitioner in the existing vacancy of Work Inspector, on 31. 7. 97, and as such the petitioner has been continuing in service till the date of the filing of the writ petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the service rules approved and published in G. O. Ms. No. 237, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26. 9. 96, which had come into existence on 1. 10. 96, the post of Work Inspector had been grouped with identical posts, and re-designated as Skilled Assistant Grade-I in the scale of pay of Rs. 3625-4900, as against the previous pay scale of Rs. 1100-25-1150-30-1660. The petitioner's probation in the said post had been satisfactorily completed and the first respondent in his proceedings No. K10/4646/2000, dated 3. 10. 2000, had declared the completion of the probation by the petitioner. The first respondent had also sanctioned the periodical annual increments to the petitioner till the year 2000. The first respondent had also fixed the seniority of the petitioner in the category of Skilled Assistant Grade-I, in his proceedings No. C3/2857/99, dated 7. 7. 99. It has been further stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings No. C3/5773/98, dated 26. 2. 2001, reverting the petitioner as Skilled Assistant Grade-II. The impugned proceedings of the first respondent is arbirary, contrary to the rules applicable to the petitioner's service, illegal and void. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 26. 2. 2001, is liable to be set aside.