S GANDHIMATHINATHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER MAYILADUTURAI MUNICIPALITY MAYILADUTURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on 10.1.1990 in Mayiladuthurai Municipality, Mayiladuthurai. At the time of filing of the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai they had put in nine years of service. During July, 1998 two posts of Wireman became vacant in Mayiladuthurai Municipality. Since the petitioners were qualified for promotion to the above said posts, as per circular memorandum of the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Chennai in R.O.C.No.48665/89/E1-4 dated 1.9.1989, they made separate representation dated 13.7.1998 to the Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai Municipality, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam, the first respondent to consider their case for appointment to the above said post. The representations of the petitioners were also forwarded to the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai, the second respondent. In the meantime one more post of Wireman along with a post of Wireman helper was sanctioned to the Municipality and thus there were three posts of wireman. Though the petitioners were qualified for promotion to the post of wireman, as per the circular of Directorate of municipal Administration, Chennai and the recommendation of the first respondent, the posts were not filled up. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed the Original Applications before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras for the relief as stated supra.

(2.) REFERRING to the circular memorandum of Directorate of Municipal Administration, Madras dated 1.9.1989, Mr. V. Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the Circular Memorandum, the qualifications prescribed for the said post of wireman was VIII standard with practical experience of three years in that particular type of work. As the petitioners were wireman helpers and possessed VIII Standard qualification with nine years of service as wireman helpers. The date on which the vacancies arose in Mayiladuthurai Municipality, Mayiladuthurai i.e. in 1998, the respondents 2 and 3 ought to have considered them for promotion to the posts of wireman helper and it is not open to the respondents to apply G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 29.6.1999. According to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, the posts that were vacant in the year 1998 ought to have been filled up only by applying the qualifications prescribed in the circular memorandum dated 1.9.1989. He further submitted that when eligible candidates were available in Municipalities, they should have been promoted to the post of Wireman, instead of resorting to Direct recruitment, the mode of appointment prescribed under the later government orders.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.