Madras High Court
R.Kayal vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2011
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.04.2011
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Raja
W.P.No.5705 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
R.Kayal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary to Education,
Government of Pondicherry,
Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry.
2.The Director of Higher Education,
Pondicherry.
3.The Member Secretary,
Pondicherry Institute of Post Matric,
- Technical Education ( PIPMATE)
Lawspet, Pondicherry.
4.The Chairman,
Pondicherry Institute of Post Matric,
- Technical Education ( PIPMATE)
Lawspet, Pondicherry 605 008.
5.The Principal,
Women's Polytechnic College,
Lawspet, Pondicherry 605 008.
6.P.Kannan,
Lab Assistant,
( Mechanical)
Karaikal Polytechnic College,
Kariakal. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the file relating to the impugned order pending on the file of the respondent No.3 and to quash the impugned order dated 07.02.2011, passed in Order No.A/6/1/1/PIPMATE/2009/A3/99, and for costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ravichander
For Respondents
1 and 3, 4 & 5 : Mr.T.P.Manoharan
For Respondent 2 : No appearance
For Respondent 6 : Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is working as a Workshop Instructor, has been transferred by the impugned order passed by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner after his selection as per the Recruitment Rules, was appointed on 05.06.1998 and she was also given a posting at Yanam in the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Polytechnic in the capacity of Workshop Instructor. As per the Recruitment Rules, the probation period is two years and after the completion of two years probationary period, the petitioner was confirmed in the said post, by an order dated 10.11.2000.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was made to work in the capacity of Workshop Instructor in three places viz., Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Polytechnic College, Yanam from 15.6.1998 to 14.01.2000, Women's Polytechnic College, Puducherry, from 15.1.2000 to 25.7.2003, and thereafter, from 26.7.2003 to 14.11.2007, she was transferred to Karaikal Polytechnic College, Karaikal. After working in the places mentioned above, she was again transferred to Women's Polytechnic College, Puducherry, on 15.11.2007, as Workshop Instructor. While she was working in the said place, the present impugned order came to be passed. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get promotion to the post of Foreman, since the Workshop Instructor post is feeder category to the promotional post.
4. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed three submissions. Firstly, when the petitioner was working as Workshop Instructor that is a different feeder category to the promotional post of Foreman, he was transferred to the post of Lab Assistant by the impugned order that too, when the post of Lab Assistant is not the same cadre as that of the Workshop Instructor. Secondly, when the Recruitment Rules states that the post of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant are different by merely passing a resolution without getting it rectified by the Government, the respondents cannot say that the post of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant are one and the same and force the petitioner to go and work as Lab Assistant. Thirdly, it was contended that when the Government till date has not approved the proposals made by the third respondent, grouping both the posts viz., Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant as one category and preparing a common seniority list, without getting it rectified by the Government, the impugned order transferring the petitioner as Workshop Instructor to the post of Lab Assistant is nullity in law and is also legally un-sustainable. On that basis, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the post of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant are not belonging to different category, for the reason that the Government, by way of a policy decision has already decided to merge both the posts viz., Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant as one post for all purposes, including fixation of seniority, ordering transfers etc., Even in the year 2001, when the PIPMATE has prepared one common seniority list for both the posts viz., Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant, even in the said common seniority list, the name of the petitioner who was initially recruited as Workshop Instructor was assigned with seniority No.1. But the petitioner does not challenge the said common seniority list on any ground, muchless on the grounds raised by her now for the first time in the present Writ Petition. Thus, when the petitioner has accepted the common seniority list already in the year 2001, it is not open to the petitioner now to say that the post of Lab Assistant is different from that of the Workshop Instructor post. The learned counsel for the respondents also stated that both the posts are carrying the same scale of pay viz., Rs.1400-2600.
6. Further, for an appointment to the posts of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant, only common Educational qualification is required viz., Diploma in trade concerned with minimum one year industrial experience and the job description is also similar to both the post and in view of these facts, the third respondent has already passed a proposal and after passing such a proposal, the PIPMATE is re-designating, by treating the post of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant as one and the same for all purposes. When the petitioner has already accepted the said common seniority list, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is not open to the petitioner to say that she has been wrongly posted to the post of Lab Assistant,which is lower to the post of Workshop Instructor.
7. In fact, the counter filed by the respondents also shows that the petitioner, though has been transferred to the post of Lab Assistant, which is equal to the post of Workshop Instructor, she is going to be utilized as Workshop Instructor only in future. Therefore, though the petitioner is transferred to the post of Lab Assistant, since she is going to be utilized in the post of Workshop Instructor, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a reasonable time to the petitioner to go and join in the post of Lab Assistant.
10. In view of dismissal of this Writ Petition today, to enable the petitioner to join the post of Lab Assistant, that has been merged with the post of Workshop Instructor, three weeks time is granted to the petitioner from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to go and report duty.
sd To
1)Secretary to Education, The Union of India, Government of Pondicherry, Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry.
2)The Director of Higher Education, Pondicherry.
3)The Member Secretary, Pondicherry Institute of Post Matric,
- Technical Education ( PIPMATE) Lawspet, Pondicherry.
W.P.No.5705 of 20114)The Chairman, Pondicherry Institute of Post Matric,
- Technical Education ( PIPMATE) Lawspet, Pondicherry 605 008.
5)The Principal, Women's Polytechnic College, Lawspet, Pondicherry 605 008