Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

C.K. Subramaniam, K.P. Kaliannan, A. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary To ... on 11 September, 2002

Author: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla

Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla

ORDER 
 

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.  
 

1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 19-11-1998 dismissing the petitioners' Original Application in O.A.No.6940 of 1993. In the said O.A., the petitioners challenged the order of the second respondent, dated 21-10-1993 in and by which, the petitioners were reverted as Special Cholera Workers and posted as Multi Purpose Health Assistants from the date of the order in the respective places.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above said O.A. are, that, pursuant to the introduction of Cholera Control Programme in 1971, the posts of Special Cholera Workers and Cholera Supervisors were created. The petitioners came to be appointed as Special Cholera Workers in the year 1971-72. The method of appointment to both the posts was by direct recruitment. By G.O.Ms.No.1848, dated 21-9-1988, appointment to the post of Cholera Supervisor was provided by promotion from among the posts of Special Cholera Workers; or by direct recruitment by transfer from any other service; or by direct recruitment if no qualified candidate was available from any of the above methods. The petitioners came to be promoted as Cholera Supervisors by proceedings dated 15-3-1989 on the footing that they were senior most persons among the Special Cholera Workers.

3. Be that as it may, the Multi Purpose Health Workers Scheme was sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.1936 dated 29-9-1982. As the said Scheme was under challenge, the implementation could be made only from 4-11-1988 by proceedings dated 12-10-1989 of the second respondent. By virtue of the said Scheme, the petitioners who were posted as Cholera Supervisors were absorbed as Multi Purpose Health Supervisors. Thereafter, an original Application came to be filed by Ms. S. Srinivasan and 29 others before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.635 of 1991 challenging the seniority of the petitioners herein. The said O.A.635 of 1991 came to be disposed along with certain other O.As. by the Tribunal in its order dated 30-6-1993. The petitioners were the respondents 3 to 7 in O.A.No.635 of 1991. The Tribunal in its order dated 30-6-1993, has ultimately held as under:

"Therefore, we direct the first and second respondents to promote the applicants in O.A.Nos.635 of 1991 to the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisors from the date when their juniors, namely, 3 to 7 respondents were promoted to that post and fix their seniority accordingly with all service and monetary benefits within two months from the date of receipt of these orders or copy thereof."

4. While reaching the above said conclusion, the Tribunal noted that the petitioners were appointed on 4.9.1971, 22.10.1971, 20.9.1972 and 26.5.1972, that they passed their Sanitary Inspectors course in June 1980 and September 1982, while the applicants in O.A.No.635 of 1991 were all appointed between 1964 to 1971, that they passed their Sanitary Inspectors Course in the years 1972, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981 and therefore, the promotions made by the order dated 15-3-1989 and their subsequent absorption by proceedings dated 12-10-1989 was not in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.1936 dated 29-9-1982, by which sanction of Multi Purpose Health Workers Scheme came to be made.

5. In the above said back ground, when the order of promotion issued to the petitioners dated 15-3-1989 specifically provided that the petitioners were promoted temporarily as Cholera Supervisors, as per the direction of the Tribunal, in its order dated 30-6-1993 in O.A.No.635 of 1991, the second respondent issued the present proceedings dated 21-10-1993 reverting the petitioners to the post of Special Cholera Workers and consequently posted them as Multi Purpose Health Assistants to the various places indicated against their names. It will have to be stated that the petitioners though were parties to earlier O.A.635 of 1991, did not choose to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 30-6-1993. The said order of the Tribunal, thus became final and conclusive. In such circumstances, when the petitioners challenged the present order of the second respondent dated 21-10-1993, the Tribunal, on finding that the said order of reversion came to be issued by way of implementation of the Tribunal's earlier order dated 30-6-1993 in O.A.No.635 of 1991, declined to interfere with the proceedings impugned before it.

6. Having regard to the undisputed position that the order of promotion issued to the petitioners earlier on 15-3-1989 was purely a temporary promotion to the post of Cholera Supervisors, which order also made it clear that they were liable to be reverted to their original post without assigning any reason therefore, if they are found to be not eligible for such promotion later on or due to any other administrative reasons and also in the light of the earlier decision of the Tribunal dated 30-6-1993 in O.A.No.635 of 1991 holding that the petitioners were not eligible to be promoted over the claims of the applicants who filed O.A.No.635 of 1991 and thereby the claims of those applicants merited precedence over the claims of the petitioners to the post of Cholera Supervisors, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the second respondent dated 21-10-1993 by which the petitioners came to be reverted to their original post of Special Cholera Workers which came to be renamed as Multi Purpose Health Assistants after the implementation of Multi Purpose Health Workers Scheme in G.O.Ms.No.1936 dated 29-9-1982 on and from 4-11-1988.

In view of our above said conclusion, we do not find any scope to interfere with the order of the Tribunal impugned in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. is closed.