Madras High Court
D. Asokan, V. Murugesan And V. Sivakumar vs Commissioner Of Municipal Council, M. ... on 3 September, 2003
Author: A.K. Rajan
Bench: A.K. Rajan
ORDER A.K. Rajan, J.
1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the orders of first respondent in R.C. No. 1537/99 H1 dated 2.05.2000 and also the orders in R.C.No. 3539 of 2000 and H1 dated 1.6.2000 and quash the same in so far as it relates to respondents 2 to 4 are concerned and consequently restore the orders in RC No. 1537 of 1999 dated 23.07.1999 and to appoint the petitioners as regular sanitary workers in Thirupattur Municipal Council.
2. The seniority list of badli sanitary workers was prepared by the Thirupathur Municipality in Office Letter No. R.C. No. 13047/89 dated 08..02.1991; objections were called for to the said seniority and after considering the various objections, final seniority of badli sanitary workers was finalized by the said Municipality on 23.07.1999 and the petitioners' seniority were fixed at numbers 5 to 7, whereas the respondents were fixed in 15 to 17. Subsequently the final seniority list dated 23.07.1999 has been revised by the authority arbitararily without notice to the petitioners and the petitioners have been lowered down as Nos. 8, 13 and 14, respectively whereas the respondents are found placed in 1 to 3, respectively. The revised seniority list has been prepared on the basis of the dates on which they registered their names in the Employment Exchange. But before revising the seniority no notice was given to the petitioners herein. Based upon the revised seniority list, respondents 2 to 4 have been promoted by an order dated 01.06.2000. Hence the writ petition.
3. No counter has been filed by the respondents.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Admittedly, there is a revised seniority list prepared by the first respondent and no notice has been issued to the petitioners herein before altering their rank in the original seniority list. Therefore, the alteration of seniority is without following the principles of natural justice and hence, the orders are liable to be set aside and hence, the impugned order is set aside.
6. Further, the seniority cannot be fixed on the basis of the date of registration in the Employment Exchange; it can be fixed only from the date on which a person enter into the service. Nowhere in the affidavit, the date of promotion or entry into service of the petitioners has been stated by the petitioners. Seniority list has to be fixed only according to the date of entry into service.
7. Respondents 2 to 4 have not raised any objections when the seniority list was published earlier and the revised/altered seniority list is not valid for the reasons stated above and hence, the same is set aside and the order of promotion given on the basis of the revised seniority is also set aside. The respondent shall pass order of promotion according to rules.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No cost.