R THAMBUSAMY Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ petitions, the challenge is to the order of the second respondent dated 25/7/2002, in and by which, the promotion granted to the petitioners as Cane Assistant in the order dated 27/12/2000, came to be rescinded.

(2.) THE brief facts which are required to be stated are that the petitioners were all working in the Pondicherry Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited and by virtue of the post held and qualification possessed by them in the year 1991/92, they were all eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Cane Assistant. It is stated that the strength of the post of Cane Assistant was 25 in that year and the same was increased to 35 by May 1991. A circular was issued on 04. 08. 1992, for filling up the post of Cane Assistant. The candidates who were eligible were called for interview for the 16 vacancies and from among them, the petitioners who were 12 in number were selected.

(3.) THE selection of the petitioners were challenged by the contesting respondents viz. , respondents 2 to 5 in W. P. Nos. 6691, 7458 and 7490 of 1993 and by an order dated 08. 09. 2000, the writ petitions were allowed and the selection of the petitioners were set aside on the sole ground that the Selection Committee which included an expert member was not a validly constituted Committee. While setting aside the selection, the learned Judge directed that the petitioners should be allowed to continue for three months within which period a fresh selection to be made by constituting a fresh Committee as per the recruitment rules. Thereafter, the Committee was constituted afresh which made the selection from amongst all the eligible candidates including the petitioners. There was a written test and an interview. The petitioners who came out successful in the written test came to be selected and were issued with separate orders of appointment dated 27/12/2000, as per the recruitment rules relating to the post of Cane Assistant.