J.BALAKRISHNAN Vs. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 19.01.2015, and to quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to reinstate him to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 24.01.2013.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition in short is as follows :-

(3.) Mr.S.Saravanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the third respondent by reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Salesman on the ground that the petitioner has not completed three years of service as Salesman is not sustainable. In fact, the reasons assigned in the impugned order for such reversion is contrary to both on law and on facts. The petitioner actually joined service as Salesman under the third respondent on 27.01.2010, and was promoted as Junior Assistant/Clerk on 24.01.2013, however, given charge as Junior Assistant/Clerk only on 01.02.2013, whereas, the impugned order states as if the petitioner joined service as Salesman on 27.01.2010 and even before completion of three years service, he was promoted as Junior Assistant/Clerk on 01.02.2012, and signed the Attendance Register from 01.02.2013 onwards and since the petitioner has not completed three years of service, he has been reverted as Salesman from 29.03.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petiitioner, the petitioner has completed three years of service. Therefore, he was promoted as Junior Assistant/Clerk. In support of the his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is relying upon the appointment letter, dated 24.01.2013, issued in favour of one Kamakshi, who was appointed as Salesman, wherein, at the conclusive portion, it is stated that the said Kamakshi has to receive charge as Clerk of Ponparappi Agriculture Cooperative Society from J.Balakrishnan (petitioner herein), Junior Clerk, and the aforesaid appointment order copy was also marked to the petitioner, mentioning him as a Junior Clerk. The self contained documents per se, is a evidence that to show that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant/Clerk as on the date of 24.01.2013. Therefore, the reasons stated in the impugned order for reverting the petitioner is factually incorrect, as the same has been passed without considering the said proceedings, dated 24.01.2013, as well as the fact that the petitioner has signed in the attendance register as Junior Assistant/Clerk from 01.02.2013. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the aforesaid documents would show that the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant/Clerk on completion of three years of service as Salesman. Further, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the fifth respondent was appointed as Clerk in the respondent/Society on compassionate grounds, but subsequently, during verification, it was found by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies that the fifth respondent is not eligible to be appointed to the post as Clerk directly. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the impugned order of the second respondent reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Salesman in order to accommodate the fifth respondent is highly arbitrary in nature and liable to be set aside. Further, the learned counsel contended that the above order has been passed without providing an opportunity to the petitioner and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.