Madras High Court
T.R. Shanmugam, M. Tandapani, D. Ganesh ... vs The Anglo French Textiles A Unit Of ... on 4 April, 2003
ORDER E. Padmanabhan, J.
1. The four petitioners herein have joined together and prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners in the post of Supervisors on and from 22.5.1987 and confirm them in that capacity with all attendant benefits.
2. With the consent of counsel on either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing on 28.3.2002. Heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, Ms. N. Mala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. According to the petitioners the respondent, an undertaking of the Union Territory of Pondicherry, invited applications on 13.10.1986 to fill up the post of Weaving Master and Trainee Supervisors. The four petitioners responded for the post of trainee supervisors since they possess he degree qualification and secretarial practice. On 22.5.1987 the respondent appointed the petitioners as Trainee Supervisors (General) and the tenure of training being 18 months from the date of joining. The petitioners were trained in various sections. Though the period of training was 18 months it was extended on account of protest from the Senior staff. After extension for over 2 1/2 years, by order dated 21.12.1989 the respondent offered employment to the Post of Junior Clerk. The petitioners were given an impression and informed that they will be appointed in the post of Supervisors and they were never made to understand that they will be appointed as Junior Clerk. Having invited applications and called for the petitioners for the interview as Trainee Supervisors, there is no justification at al to appoint the petitioners as Junior Clerks. The respondent is estopped from changing the employment unilaterally. As the respondent has been promising to confirm the petitioners appointment as Supervisors, they did not rush to this court. The petitioners submitted representations for being appointed and confirmed as Supervisors, a managerial cadre and that they shall not be allowed to languish in the ministerial cadre which they never aspired or applied for. The respondent confirmed the petitioners as Junior Clerks during 1987 and had not considered the request of the petitioners for being confirmed as Supervisors. According to the petitioners they have been put to monetary loss, status and humiliation. The respondent has ultimately declined to concede to the request of the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition was filed on 1st of April 1999. This court ordered notice of motion on 8th April, 1999.
4. On behalf of the respondent a counter has been filed contending that the petitioners are not entitled for the issue of writ of mandamus as prayed for. The respondent has referred to formation of Pondicherry Textile Corporation, the acquisition of Anglo French Textiles and vesting of the same. Article 74 of the Association of Pondicherry Textile Corporation deals with the powers of appointment of Clerks, Officers etc., The petitioners were initially absorbed as Junior Clerks after receiving their individual options and acceptance for the said appointments. According to the respondent all the petitioners were regularised as Junior Clerks with effect from 1.9.1990 and they have worked as such for the last eight years. In fact the petitioners were also promoted to the next higher cadre namely junior Plus Clerks after they have completed their original service period in the clerical cadre with effect from 15.6.1995.
5. It is admitted that the respondent invited applications from the candidates to be trained as Supervisors Trainees (General) on 13.10.1986 and in all 35 candidates were selected and they were given training as supervisors trainees with effect from 15.8.1987. The petitioners were part of the same group. All the 28 supervisors who completed their training between 15.6.1987 and 31.12.1989 which was extended from time to time on periodical basis and they were being paid increased stipend. After completion of the training period, the management assessed the performance of the trainees and they were found not adequately suitable for posting as Supervisors. However, keeping in view of the plight of the candidates, who would be rendered jobless the Corporation instead of terminating them, purely on humanitarian basis offered them an opportunity to join the organization in the capacity of Junior clerks. Individual orders were issued to each of the trainee seeking their option to join as Junior Clerk in the scale of pay indicated in the letter of offer. After receipt of the individual acceptance letters duly signed by the trainees appointment orders dated 1.1.1990 were issued to each of the trainees clearly specifying the post of appointment and the terms and conditions of services in response to which all the trainees including the petitioners have joined the post on their accepting the letter of appointment. By accepting the letter of appointment and joining as Junior Clerks and working in that category for several years, the petitioners are estopped from making a claim to the Post of Supervisors. The petitioners' claim is not maintainable both in law and on facts. At the time of posting of the petitioners as supervisor Trainees (General) s8 individual orders were issued to each of the individual specifying the terms and conditions. It has also been indicated that subject to the availability of vacancy and also subject to work and conduct being satisfactory, the individuals will be absorbed in regular Supervisory grade on the specified scale and allowances. The respondent has not guaranteed the absorption of the petitioners after completion of training period. The petitioners have accepted the post of Junior Clerks, worked there nearly for 7 to 8 years accepted the promotion to the post of Junior Plus Clerks and there after they have approached this Court.
6. The petitioners have voluntarily accepted the offer and joined as Junior Clerks and also earned further promotion to the Post of Junior Plus Clerks. Therefore at this point they are estopped from claiming the appointment of supervisors. Having accepted the promoted post of Junior Plus Clerks it is not open to the petitioners to come before this court after 8/9 long years. The writ petition is highly belated and liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The petitioners were absorbed only as Junior Clerks on their own, they have accepted the said post and they have worked in that post for few years. The petitioners cannot claim the post of Supervisors since they have not satisfactorily competed the training as trainees and on humanitarian ground alone they were given the appointment of Junior Clerks which they willingly accepted. At no point of time the respondent has agreed to confirm the petitioners for the post of supervisors. The petitioners are estopped from claiming the post of supervisors. The petitioners have no statutory right to claim the relief sought for and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
7. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in which the petitioners reiterated their claim. It is stated by the petitioners that they have never consented for a lesser post than the one to which they applied and were selected. The petitioners have been insisting and protesting from time to time. The petitioners have faith in the respondent and therefore they were awaiting for the orders from the respondent. The petitioners contended that the respondent should have appointed the petitioners in the cadre of supervisors.
8. The only point that arises for consideration is:-
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint them as supervisors with all benefits? If so, from which date?
9. Initially applications were invited to fill up the Post of Trainee Supervisors (General). It is true that the petitioners and several others underwent training for 2 1/2 years. However by the end of the training period as set out in the counter affidavit, the performance of the petitioners being not satisfactory they were offered alternate employment of Junior clerks, which the petitioners willingly accepted and reported for duty.
10. On 21.12.1989 the respondent issued orders to the petitioners calling upon the individual petitioners to express their willingness/consent to accept the post of Junior Clerks, which letter reads thus:-
ORDER
1. On completion of training as Trainee Supervisor (General) and consdiering his performances, Thiru T.R. Shanmugam is offered the post of Junior Clerk in the scale of Rs. 805-12-877-16.50-976-EB-21-1081-27-1324 plus usual allowances admissible to such categories of employees in the Anglo French Textiles.
2. Thiru T.R. Shanmugam is advised that if he is interested to join and work as Junior Clerk in the Mill with effect from 1.1.1990 he may give his consent on or before 30.12.1989, failing which it will be construed that he is not interested to work in the Mill after 31.12.1989."
11. In response to the above offer, the first petitioner by his letter dated 27.12.1989 expressed his consent to accept the post and joint as Junior Clerk. The said letter reads thus:-
"Respected Sir, Sub: Giving consent to joint as Junior Clerk Ref: Office Order dated 21.12.1989 With reference to the above I wish to give my consent to join and work as Junior Clerk in the Mill from 1.1.990. I am grateful to you for offering the post to me. Thanking you Sir, Yours faithfully, Sd/..(T.R.Shanugam)"
12. Identical offer letters have been issued to the petitioners and the four petitioners herein have expressed their willingness to join the said post of Junior Clerk. On the basis of the consent letters submitted by the petitioners, the respondent issued Appointment Order dated 1.1.1990 imposing certain terms and conditions.
13. Thus the alternative employment offered by the respondent has been willingly accepted by the petitioners and they have joined the said post of Junior Clerks which the petitioners could have declined, as it is at their option. On the other hand giving up their claims, the petitioners opted to join the post of Junior Clerks.
14. The petitioners have worked in the cadre of junior clerks for few years and thereafter they were advanced to Junior Plus Clerks which is a promotion post. The petitioners have also joined the said promotion post. Subsequently, the petitioners have further advanced to Junior Supervisors, which is also a promotion post. Thus for nearly a decade the petitioners, though it is represented have been making representations, have accepted the post of Junior Clerk, accepted the promotion to the Post of Junior Plus Clerks and subsequently Junior Supervisors as well and therefore it is not open to the petitioners to now contend that they should have been appointed as supervisors and they should be given all benefits as supervisors from the date of their initial appointment. This contention advanced by the petitioners cannot be sustained.
15. As seen from the counter affidavit the petitioners have voluntarily accepted the offer and joined the post of Junior Clerks and worked in the said post of junior clerks for several years. It may be that the petitioners might have been making representations now and then expressing certain grievance. However, on that score it cannot be held that the respondent is bound to appoint the petitioners as supervisors (General). Nothing prevented the petitioners immediately after completion of the training to approach this court and seek for necessary direction. But the petitioners have waited 8/10 long years and have come before this court after earning promotion as well. The writ petition is not only belated, but the petitioners are guilty of laches. That apart, they are also estopped from claiming the post of Supervisors (General) since they readily accepted the offer made by the respondent and joined the post of Junior Clerks and subsequently on promotion joined the post of Junior Plus Clerks as well as Junior Supervisors.
16. In the circumstances, this court holds that the petitioners who have approached this court belatedly and estopped by their conduct of accepting alternative employment offered by the respondent and therefore they are not entitled to the relief of mandamus prayed for. Having accepted the offer of employment as Junior Clerk and worked for several years and accepted the promotion to the post of Junior Plus Clerk and Junior Supervisor, it is too late in the day for the petitioners to come before this court and seek for a mandamus as if they have got a right to be appointed to the post of Supervisor(General) after a decade. The petitioners are not only estopped by accepting the alternative employment offered by the respondent, but also they are also guilty of laches and it is too late for them to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. The plea of estoppel put forward by the respondent deserves to be sustained and the relief of mandamus on the facts of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to. Hence the writ petition is dismissed, but without costs.