Madras High Court
G.Selvaraj vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 1 July, 2014
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.Nos.24860 to 24865 of 2011
W.P.No.24860 of 2011
1. G.Selvaraj
2. S.Sekar .. Petitioners
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary
Industries Department (MIA I)
Employment and Training
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary of Employment
Labour and Employment Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
3. The Commissioner of Employment and Training
Guindy
Chennai 600 032
4. The Joint Director (Craftsmen Training)
Director of Employment and Training
Guindy
Chennai 600 032
5. The District Employment Officer
Vellore
6. D.S.Ramesh
7. M.Durai
8. S.Govindan .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent dated 03.03.2010 made in Proceedings No.31770/TP2/2009-3; No.31770/TP.2/2009-10; No.3/770/TP.2/2009-45 and quash the same in so far as the employment granted to the sixth to eighth respondents and consequently direct the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioners for the post of Fitter with the fifth respondent in the available vacancy and grant such attendant service benefits.
For Petitioners :: Mrs.G.Thilakavathi
For Respondents :: Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R5
Ms.C.Sriranjani for R6
Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran
for M/s Aiyar & Dolia for R7
No appearance for R8
W.P.No.24863 of 2011
N.Selvaraj .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary
Industries Department (MIA I)
Employment and Training
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary of Employment
Labour and Employment Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
3. The Commissioner of Employment and Training
Guindy
Chennai 600 032
4. The Joint Director (Craftsmen Training)
Director of Employment and Training
Guindy
Chennai 600 032
5. The District Employment Officer
Vellore
6. P.K.Ravi
7. P.Vedachallam .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent dated 03.03.2010 made in Proceedings No.31770/TP2/2009-27 and 28.02.2011 made in Proceedings No.31770/TP.2/2009-1 and quash the same in so far as the employment granted to the sixth and seventh respondents and consequently direct the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Electrician with the fifth respondent in the available vacancy and grant such attendant service benefits.
For Petitioner :: Mrs.G.Thilakavathi
For Respondents :: Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R5
No appearance for R6 & R7
W.P.Nos.24861, 24862, 24864 & 24865 of 2011:
N.Periyaswamy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24861 of 2011
G.Muthukrishnan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24862 of 2011
P.Mahendran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24864 of 2011
S.Sathiya .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24865 of 2011
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary
Industries Department (MIA I)
Employment and Training
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary of Employment
Labour and Employment Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
3. The Commissioner of Employment and Training
Guindy
Chennai 600 032 .. Respondents 1 to 3 in all the W.Ps.
4. The District Employment Officer 4th respondent in W.P.Nos.24861 &
Kanyakumari .. 24862 of 2011
5. The District Employment Officer 4th respondent in W.P.No.24864
Vellore .. of 2011
6. The District Employment Officer 4th respondent in W.P.No.24865
Santhome, Chennai .. of 2011
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to appoint the petitioners as Junior Training Officers (Electro Plater), (Wireman), (Mechanic Motor Vehicle) and (Mechanic Radio & TV) respectively in the available vacancies under the third respondent.
For Petitioners :: Mrs.G.Thilakavathi
For Respondents :: Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
There are six writ petitions. Writ Petition No.24860 of 2011 has been filed by Mr.G.Selvaraj and Mr.S.Sekar seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the fourth respondent-Joint Director (Craftsmen Training) dated 03.03.2010 made in Proceedings No.31770/TP2/2009-3; No.31770/TP.2/2009-10; No.3/770/TP.2/2009-45, to quash the same in so far as the employment granted to the sixth to eighth respondents with a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioners for the post of Fitter with the fifth respondent in the available vacancy and grant such attendant service benefits. Writ Petition No.24863 of 2011 has been filed by Mr.N.Selvaraj seeking a similar prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the fourth respondent dated 03.03.2010 made in Proceedings No.31770/TP2/2009-27 and 28.02.2011 made in Proceedings No.31770/TP.2/2009-1, to quash the same in so far as the employment granted to the sixth and seventh respondents with a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Electrician with the fifth respondent in the available vacancy and grant such attendant service benefits. Similarly, Writ Petition Nos.24861, 24862, 24864 and 24865 of 2011 have been filed by Mr.N.Periyaswamy, Mr.G.Muthukrishnan, Mr.P.Mahendran and Mrs.S.Sathiya seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the third respondent-Commissioner of Employment and Training to appoint the petitioners as Junior Training Officers (Electro Plater), (Wireman), (Mechanic Motor Vehicle) and (Mechanic Radio & TV) respectively in the available vacancies under the third respondent.
2. Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.24860 of 2011 has submitted that the first petitioner Mr.G.Selvaraj, after passing +2 in the year 1988, acquired the National Trade Certificate in Fitter trade from the National Council for Vocational Training in the year 1992 and after completing the National Apprenticeship certificate course in the year 1996 came to be employed in Abirami Industries from the year 1996 to 2001 and also registered his name with the fourth respondent-Joint Director (Craftsmen Training) from 10.7.92. Similarly, the second petitoiner-Mr.S.Sekar also, after passing +2, has acquired the technical qualification as Fitter by passing the National Trade Certificate from the National Council for Vocational Training during the year 1987. He had also acquired one another certificate of Apprenticeship during the year 1989-90 and registered his name with the employment exchange in the year 1987 bearing Regn.No.4132 of 1987. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.24863 of 2011, Mr.N.Selvaraj, after passing 10th and +2, obtained the technical qualification by undergoing the ITI course. While so, the third respondent issued a notification in the year 2004 calling for applications from technically qualified persons in Fitter, Electrician, Mechanic (Motor) Vehicle, Radio and T.V. Mechanic, Wireman, Electro Plater etc., trades to be designated as Junior Training Officer in the training wing and the process was to commence on 18.11.2004 as per the said notification. However, at the relevant point of time, the State owned Public Sector company, namely, M/s Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited was closed down for reasons of non-feasibility of continuing the industry. In view of that, the Government also took suitable rehabilitation measures to provide employment to such of those employees who were rendered jobless on account of the closure of the steel plant, which formed the basis of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.524, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 21.8.98, giving a direction to the State Public Sector Undertakings including the Transport Corporations to fill up the posts which existed in those organisations by absorbing the employees of the Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited without reference to the employment exchange, till such time the entire eligible list of employees of Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited were absorbed in the relevant posts as per G.O.Ms.No.524, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 21.8.98, G.O.Ms.No.623, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 22.9.98 and another G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002. At this point of time, when the petitioners were also called for interview for the post of Junior Training Officer in the third respondent, surprisingly, they were not given the benefit of posting, despite the fact that they attended the interview, for the reason that writ petitions were filed and interim orders were granted restricting such recruitment by the other persons who were already retrenched from the Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited.
3. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that when the 27 employees, after being retrenched from the Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos.33354 and 33746 of 2004 for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Director of Employment and Training, Chennai to appoint them in the post of Junior Training Officers in the training wing of their department in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.64, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 19.7.2002 read with G.O.Ms.No.524, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 21.8.98 and G.O.Ms.No.623, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 22.9.98 respectively, this Court also, accepting the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, wherein it was pointed out that the Government proposed to reserve 81 posts of Junior Training Officers for the petitioners therein and other retrenched employees of Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited, Arakkonam out of 353 vacant posts subject to the outcome of the pending writ petitions and to fill up the remaining vacant posts of 272 Junior Training Officers in the Government Industrial Training Institutes, issued a direction to the respondents to appoint all the 27 petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions as Junior Training Officers in the training wing of their department, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.64, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 21.7.2002, G.O.Ms.No.524, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 21.8.98 and G.O.Ms.No.623, Industries (MIA-I) Department dated 22.9.98 respectively within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. But all these 27 petitioners had concealed the vital fact that they were all absorbed even after being retrenched in various public sector undertakings. The respondents also did not bring to the notice of this Court about their re-employment after their retrenchment in various public sector undertakings, resultantly, the Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.12, Labour and Employment (B2) Department dated 3.2.2010. In view of that, the petitioners, who were called for interview, were denied employment.
4. Adding further the learned counsel submitted that when the petitioners are all along waiting in queue in the employment exchange from the date of registration with all the eligible and requisite qualification to the post of Junior Training Officer, their shares have been erroneously and unfairly snatched away by several persons including the contesting respondents, in spite of the fact that they were all absorbed after their retrenchment in comfortable places. Therefore, she sought for quashing the appointment made to the contesting respondents herein, since great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. Concluding her arguments, the learned counsel further emphasised that the action of the fourth respondent seeking to recruit the respondents 6 to 8 in W.P.No.24860 of 2011 under G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002 is a mala fide exercise of power for extraneous consideration and moreover there is absolutely no manner in which the fourth respondent could extend the benefit of employment as provided in G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002 in deprivation of opportunity to the petitioners and similarly placed individuals. On this basis, she prayed for allowing both the above writ petitions by quashing the appointment orders issued to the private respondents.
5. Further, leading the cause of the petitioners in the other four writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.24861, 24862, 24864 and 24865 of 2011, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner-Mr.N.Periyaswamy, after passing +2, acquired the National Trade Certificate in Electro Plater trade in the year 1987 and also completed the apprenticeship training in British Physical Laboratories Systems at Palghat during 1988-89. Mr.G.Muthukrishnan also, after passing X standard in 1966, passed the Wireman course conducted by the National Council for Vocational Training during the year 1988. He had also acquired the National Apprenticeship certificate for the said trade in the year 1989-90. That apart, he is also having the work experience of Junior Training Officer, as he had served at the technical institute of Engineering and Industrial Training Centre at Nagercoil from the year 1994-96 and thereafter from 1996 to 2001 with the Sharp Industrial Training Centre at Coimbatore. In the meanwhile, he also registered his name with the employment exchange during the year 1993. Similarly, Mr.P.Rajendran, after completing 10th standard, passed the National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) in the year 1990 and also completed the apprenticeship training in the said year during 1997. He had also registered his name with the employment exchange and also had work experience in the said trade. Similarly, Mrs.S.Sathiya, after completing 10th standard, successfully passed the National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Radio & TV) trade during 1993 and completed the apprenticeship training during 1996-97. She had also registered her name with the employment exchange during 1994 and having work experience in the said trade. While so, all of them were called for interview for the post of Junior Training Officer in the respective trades by the third respondent herein, but they were not given the benefit of posting, for the reason that the retrenched employees from the Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited, who were already reemployed, were again absorbed on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 21.8.98, G.O.Ms.No.623 dated 22.9.98 and G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002 respectively. Another grievance of these petitioners shows that when the erstwhile employees of the Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited were suitably employed as per G.O.Ms.No.524 and G.O.Ms.No.623, suppressing the fact that they were already employed in various public sector undertakings, wrongly filed W.P.Nos.33354 and 33746 of 2004 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Employment and Training, Chennai to appoint them as Junior Training Officers in the training wing of their department in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002 read with G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 21.8.98 and G.O.Ms.No.623 dated 22.9.98 respectively. The respondents also without divulging the information that these persons were already suitably employed in other establishments, wrongly invited the order, as a result, the petitioners were all denied employment. Therefore, for wrongly approaching this Court by filing W.P.Nos.33354 and 33746 of 2004 by withholding the information that they were already suitably employed, ought not to have obtained an order for fresh appointment, as though they were left without any employment. On this basis, she prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Junior Training Officers in the respective trades in the available vacancies with the third respondent.
6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the sixth respondent. When an objection was raised by Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel for the seventh respondent as to the maintainability of the writ petitions, by placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.33354 and 33746 of 2004 dated 2.4.2009 pointing out to this Court that on an earlier occasion, when 27 persons came to this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the third respondent viz., the Director of Employment and Training, Chennai to appoint them in the post of Junior Training Officer in the training wing of their department in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002 read with G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 21.8.98 and G.O.Ms.No.623 dated 22.9.98 respectively, the respondent also by filing counter affidavit stated that the Government proposed to reserve 81 posts of Junior Training Officers for the petitioners therein and other retrenched employees of Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited, Arakkonam out of 353 vacant posts subject to the outcome of the writ petitions and to fill up the remaining vacant posts of 272 Junior Training Officers in the Government Industrial Training Institutes, this Court, accepting the submission made by the respondents and hearing the learned Government Advocate representing the respondents, directed the respondents therein to appoint all the 27 petitioners in the post of Junior Training Officer in the training wing of their department, in the light of the aforesaid three Government Orders. Pursuant to the said order, G.O.Ms.No.12, Labour and Employment Department dated 3.2.2010 was also passed appointing all the 27 persons. Now the petitioners, without challenging either the Government Orders or the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.33354 and 33743 of 2004 dated 2.4.2009, cannot maintain the present writ petitions. Adding further, Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran submitted that when the contesting respondents Mr.M.Durai and Mr.Govindan were already appointed by virtue of the order passed by this Court read with G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002, without challenging the above order, no direction can be given by this Court, since the respondents have appointed these persons only on the basis of the order passed by this Court, as this would create inconsistency in the department.
7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the prayer in the writ petitions can be confined to a limited direction to the respondents to appoint them, as there is no purpose going to be served against the other respondents who were parties before this Court in W.P.Nos.33354 and 33746 of 2004.
8. Ms.C.Sriranjani, learned counsel for the sixth respondent also submitted that there is no embargo or bar for seeking re-employment from one public sector undertaking to another public sector undertaking. Therefore, the sixth respondent, after being retrenched from Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited, was employed based on the Government Order issued G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002 for the absorption of the retrenched employees. Although they were reemployed already, the salary given to them by the public sector undertaking was very low. Therefore, in the absence of any bar in the form of Government Order or circular, the sixth respondent was legally entitled to seek for re-employment for better salary and better service conditions. Therefore, she submitted that the petitioners cannot challenge the order of appointment given to the sixth respondent.
9. Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents also submitted that the private respondents who were also re-appointed in various public sector undertakings have completed four years of service from the date of re-appointment. That apart, they were also appointed by virtue of the order passed by this Court and on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 3.2.2010. In that view of the matter, it is too late for the petitioners to come to this Court to challenge only the appointment orders given to the private respondents.
10. This Court, keeping in mind that the private respondents who were admittedly retrenched by the Tamil Nadu Steel Plants Limited, Arakkonam during the year 1998, were rightly absorbed by various Government Orders issued by the Government namely, G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 21.8.98, G.O.Ms.No.623 dated 22.9.98 and G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 19.7.2002 respectively, who were entitled to seek for re-employment anywhere, as there is no specific bar or prohibition to seek for such re-employment. Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, after going through the aforesaid Government Orders, also fairly conceded that there is no prohibition or embargo or impediment for seeking re-employment by the re-absorbed employees from any other public sector undertaking. While that be the case, this Court is not able to find any justification to interfere with the orders of appointment given to the contesting respondents. However, this Court, finding some merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were not given any employment after they were called for interview, is inclined to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioners also to the post of Junior Training Officers in the respective trades of their department along with the other persons who were invited to participate in the interview and consider them for appointment on merits as and when the selection process is initiated. With this observation, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 are closed. No costs.
Index : yes/no 01.07.2014
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Industries Department (MIA I)
Employment and Training
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Secretary to Government
Labour and Employment Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
3. The Commissioner of Employment and Training
Guindy
Chennai 600 032
4. The Joint Director (Craftsmen Training)
Director of Employment and Training
Guindy
Chennai 600 032
5. The District Employment Officer
Vellore
6. The District Employment Officer
Nagercoil at Kanyakumari
7. The District Employment Officer
Santhome
Chennai
T.RAJA, J.
ss
W.P.Nos.24860 to 24865 of 2011
01.07.2014