Madras High Court
N. Vijayakumar vs Union Of India on 25 September, 2014
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.09.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A. Nos.1295 and 1296 of 2014 and M.P. Nos.1,1,2 & 2 of 2014 1 N. Vijayakumar 2 S. Abdul Azeez 3 H. Hariarputharaj 4 E. Subramani 5 L.N.S. Sureshbabu 6 S. Retnakumar 7 M.G. Ganesan 8 A. Kumar 9 M. Chidambaram 10 M. Karuppiah 11 M. Ramachandraiah 12 Shankar 13 S. Sampath 14 D. Albert Thomas 15 P. Sankar Raj 16 T. Bramanandam 17 S. Balu 18 V. Vijayaraghavan 19 J.V. Senthil 20 M. Raja 21 G. Vivekanandan 22 M. Seeralan 23 E. Marimuthu 24 K. Ravikumar 25 M. Dhanasekar 26 P.L. Saravanan 27 G. Sivaraj 28 K. Saravanakumar 29 K. Karunamoorthy 30 R. Murali 31 S. Nandakumar 32 J. Aruldoss 33 C. Aravind 34 P. Venugopal 35 J. Ilamparuthi 36 M. Bouse 37 K. Kajendran 38 M. Selvam 39 M. Thiyagarajan 40 S. Sekar 41 VAP. Balakrishnan 42 E.K. Venkatraman Appellants in W.A. No.1295 of 2014 1 L. George 2 G. Venkatasamy 3 R. Ravi 4 S. Radhakrishnan 5 S. Kamalsanthosh 6 K. Anandarao Appellants in W.A. No.1296 of 2014 Vs. 1 Union of India represented by its Secretary Ministry of Civil Aviation B Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003 2 The Chairman Airports Authority of India Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003 3 The Airport Director Chennai Airport Meenambakkam Chennai 600 027 4 The Regional Executive Director Southern Region Chennai Airport Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027 5 The Assistant General Manager (HR) Airport Authority of India Chennai Airport Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027 6 Mr. M. Mavia Airport Authority of India Agathi Airport (Fire Section) Kerala Respondents in W.A. No.1295 of 2014 1 Union of India represented by its Secretary Ministry of Civil Aviation B Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003 2 The Chairman Airports Authority of India Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003 3 The Airport Director Chennai Airport Meenambakkam Chennai 600 027 4 The Regional Executive Director Southern Region Chennai Airport Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027 5 The Assistant General Manager (HR) Airport Authority of India Chennai Airport Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027 5 R. Periasamy Airport Authority of India Chennai Airport Meenambakkam Chennai 600 027 Respondents in WA No.1296/2014 Prayer in W.A. No.1295 of 2014: Writ Appeal filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 19.09.2014 passed in M.P. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2014 in W.P. No.10744 of 2014. Prayer in W.A. No.1296 of 2014: Writ Appeal filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 19.09.2014 passed in M.P. No. 5 of 2014 in W.P. No.10743 of 2014 and thereby restoring the order of status quo dated 30.04.2014 in W.P. No.10743 of 2014. For appellants Mr. V. Prakash, Sr. Counsel for M/s. Shubharanjani Ananth For respondents Dr. Fr. A. Xavier Arulraj Reserved on 24.09.2014 COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants herein were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. While W.P. No.10743 of 2014 was filed challenging the Circular dated 18.12.2012, the consequential seniority list dated 27.09.2013 and the consequential promotion orders dated 30.12.2013, W.P. No.10744 of 2014 was filed challenging the proceedings dated 10/17.10.2012, Circular dated 18.12.2012, seniority list dated 27.09.2013, promotion order dated 30.12.2013, proceedings dated 02.04.2014 and also the proceedings dated 11.04.2014. Further in both the writ petitions, the appellants have sought the preparation of a new seniority list. Pending the writ petitions, the appellants have obtained orders of status quo. The respondents duly filed petitions to vacate the interim orders granted.
2 The learned Single Judge, considering the issues raised, vacated the interim orders granted. While doing so, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the appellants to challenge the orders of transfer to be issued separately, if aggrieved. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the instant writ appeals have been preferred.
3 It is also seen that though the earlier proceedings have not been challenged, an amendment application has been filed. However, the said amendment has not been ordered. Yet, the narration of the prayer sought in the writ petitions, has been recorded by us to be inclusive of the said proceedings as well.
4 Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the fixation of seniority list has been done arbitrarily, contrary to the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. Reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel on Section 18 of the said enactment.
5 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the appellants have been working in the said position for the past 18 years; though there is no interim order of stay in respect of the Regulations brought forth by the respondents, it is pending consideration before this Court; the learned Single Judge ought to have posted the writ petitions to be tried along with the said pending writ petitions; pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, 4 of the appellants have been issued with the orders of transfer; therefore, the status quo granted earlier, will have to be continued till the disposal of the writ petitions.
6 Per contra, Dr. Fr. A. Xavier Arulraj, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, submitted that the parent order passed by the Government of India has not been challenged; there is no order of stay against the operation of the Airports Authority of India (Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 2005; the appellants have rushed to this Court even before the options were called for; the learned Single Judge has given liberty to challenge the orders of transfer by the appellants, if they feel aggrieved; an omnibus order of status quo has been obtained; the issue involved has already been considered by the High Court of Calcutta, High Court of Bombay and other High Courts and the Supreme Court has also upheld the validity of the order passed by the Central Government. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments:
i Airports Authority of India vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and others, (2009) 8 SCC 337;
ii order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.10894 & 10895 of 2009.
iii order dated 23.04.2009 passed in LPA No.117 of 2009 in WP ST No.9004 of 2009 in Airports Authority of India vs. The President, Airport Kamgar Union and Others;
iv order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in W.P. No.16456 of 2012 in Pankaj Kumar Paul vs. Airports Authority of India, Kolkata and 3 others.
7 We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8 Admittedly, there was no stay granted to the Airports Authority of India (Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 2005 in W.P. No.13555 of 2014. The final common seniority list was also published on 27.09.2013. Promotions have already been given to the erstwhile employees of International Airports Authority of India and National Airports Authority of India. The legal issues raised by the parties will have to be decided in the writ petitions. Prima facie, it appears that some of the other High Courts have upheld the parent decision made by the Government of India. The learned Single Judge has also observed that as and when transfer orders are passed, it is open to the appellants to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
9 In our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his discretion against the appellants on the facts and circumstances of the case. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these writ appeals.
10 In view of the foregoing, the writ appeals stand dismissed. However, we make it clear that the observations and discussions made, both by the learned Single Judge and also by us in this order, are to be considered only for the purpose of deciding the Miscellaneous Petitions. Further, considering the issues raised, we request the learned Single Judge dealing with the writ petitions to take up the writ petitions and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(S.K.A.,J.) (M.M.S.,J.) 25.09.2014 cad SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. and M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
Today, after the judgment in these writ appeals was pronounced, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it may be observed in the judgment that any action done by the respondents or to be done by the respondents will be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.
Considering the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, we make it clear that the action taken pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, as confirmed by us in these writ appeals and also the action to be taken by the respondents, will be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.
(S.K.A.J.) (M.M.S.J.) 25.09.2014 cad To 1 The Secretary Ministry of Civil Aviation B Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003 2 The Chairman Airports Authority of India Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003 3 The Airport Director Chennai Airport Meenambakkam Chennai 600 027 4 The Regional Executive Director Southern Region Chennai Airport Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027 5 The Assistant General Manager (HR) Airport Authority of India Chennai Airport Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027 SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
and M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
cad Pre-delivery common judgment in W.A. Nos.1295 and 1296 of 2014 25.09.2014