Madras High Court
A.Balakrishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.01.2012 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.112 to 121 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 W.P.No.112 of 2012 A.Balakrishnan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Director of Town Panchayat Kuralagam Chennai 108 3. The District Collector Trichi District Trichi 4. The Executive Officer Mettupalayam Town Panchayat Trichi District Trichi 5. V.Parvathi .. Respondents Prayer in W.P.No.112 of 2012: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.21/2007 dated 9.8.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner in all W.Ps :: Mr.G.Rajagopal, Senior counsel for M/s.G.R.Associates COMMON ORDER
The writ petitioner claiming to be a Social Worker under the 4th respondent Mettupalayam Town Panchayat in Trichirapalli District has filed the present Writ Petitions challenging an order passed by the 4th respondent Executive Officer, Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Trichirapalli District. By the impugned order in each of the Writ Petition dated 9.8.2011, the Executive Officer after conducting an enquiry in respect of the contesting 5th respondent in each case, who were employed as Sanitary Workers found that the allegation made, their employment was irregular, was not substantiated and therefore their appointment made earlier by the proceedings dated 27.4.2007 was confirmed and their services were also regularised with effect from 2.5.2007 and will be paid monetary benefits from the date of regularisation.
2. The petitioner's contention was that the order is an eye wash and contrary to the earlier directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.26071 to 26080 of 2008 filed by the contesting respondents. It transpires, the contesting respondents were sought to be terminated by the 4th respondent Executive Officer vide order dated 14.10.2008. Therefore, they moved this Court by way of Writ Proceedings. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner herein by name A.Balakrishnan got himself impleaded as 10th respondent and he was represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Rajagopal, who is now before this Court in respect of these Writ Petitions for the very same petitioner.
3. The learned Judge disposed of all the Writ Petitions by a common order dated 25.11.2010 and in paragraph 19, it was observed as follows:
"19. For the foregoing discussions, on perusing the materials on record as also analysing the various provisions of law, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and accordingly, they are set aside and these matters are remanded back to the fourth respondent herein with a direction to conduct an enquiry by following the procedures as contemplated under law, such as, issuing show cause notice to the petitioners, calling for explanation and proceed further in accordance with law."
4. With reference to the locus standi of the petitioner, the learned Judge rejected the competency of he petitioner to be heard in the matter and in paragraph 20, it was observed as follows:
"20. With regard to the claim of the impleaded parties (R-6 to R-9), as they have already moved before the Madurai Bench of this Court by way of filing Writ Petitions, it is open to them to work out their remedy by pursuing the materials there further and in respect of the 10th respondent, who has impleaded himself as a party respondent for social cause, this is not the appropriate forum to look into the matter and therefore, his claim is rejected."
It is claimed that as against the said order, the petitioner has filed a Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the matters are yet to be listed for admission.
5. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the common order, it is seen from the records produced by the petitioner that the 4th respondent after getting explanation from the contesting respondents and after the oral evidence recorded and perusing the enquiry report including the copy of the letter sent from the Local Fund Audit Department, Trichirapalli by the Deputy Director and after consulting the Government Advocate appearing for the Town Panchayat and getting legal advice, passed the impugned order dated 9.8.2011.
6. Though the petitioner's locus standi was rejected, he is once again before this Court stating that the charges levelled against the Sanitary Workers are serious and the show cause notices issued on the enquiry report are very vague and bald and the Executive Officer, who appointed them is facing serious charge proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, no proper charges were made and retaining the contesting respondents is in gross violation of the constitutional provisions and no procedure was followed. The finding given by the Personal Assistant to the Collector will clearly demonstrate the stand taken by them.
7. The learned senior counsel, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2007 (5) SCC 65, stated that the appointment made without following the due procedure is illegal. The learned Senior Counsel fairly admitted that the employees are governed by Third Grade Municipality and the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 will apply in which the event the State Government is fully empowered to suspend or cancel any order issued by the Municipality. The petitioner except by claiming that he was a resident of Town Panchayat and social worker has not shown any grievance being either as contestant for the said post or that he is by virtue of the Enactment is entitled to make a step over the service matter of the Town Panchayat. In this context, as rightly held by this Court in the earlier round of litigation that the petitioner's locus standi to question the appointment is doubtful.
8. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 has observed as follows:
18. The constitution of Administrative Tribunals was necessitated because of the large pendency of cases relating to service matters in various courts in the country. It was expected that the setting up of Administrative Tribunals to deal exclusively in service matters would go a long way in not only reducing the burden of the courts but also provide to the persons covered by the Tribunals speedy relief in respect of their grievances. The basic idea as evident from the various provisions of the Act is that the Tribunal should quickly redress the grievances in relation to service matters. The definition of service matters found in Section 3(q) shows that in relation to a person, the expression means all service matters relating to the conditions of his service. The significance of the word his cannot be ignored. Section 3(b) defines the word application as an application made under Section 19. The latter section refers to person aggrieved. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the word order has been defined in the explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3(q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. If in that context Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the service concerned cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal, the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.
19. Our attention has been drawn to a judgment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in Amitarani Khuntia v. State of Orissa6. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act held that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal. The following passage in the judgment is relevant:
... A reading of the aforesaid provisions would mean that an application for redressal of grievances could be filed only by a person aggrieved within the meaning of the Act.
Tribunals are constituted under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. The above article empowers Parliament to enact law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government and such law shall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals. Thus, it follows that Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well defined in the Act. It does not enjoy any plenary power. We agree with the above reasoning.
9. The said statement was clothed approval in the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Neetu Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (10) SCC 614 and in paragraph 5 of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
"5......
16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra4 this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.,(2004 (3) SCC 349) SCC pp.358-59, paras 14-16."
10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to question either the appointment of the contesting respondent or the consequential decision taken by the Executive Officer pursuant to the direction issued by this Court.
11. As noted already, this Court after going into the grievance of the contesting respondent found that their termination was illegal and their service cannot be dispensed with except by following due procedure and pursuant to the said direction, the Executive Officer has undertaken exercise of conducting the enquiry and passing final orders and he has also recorded that there was no irregularities in the appointment made in favour of the contesting respondents for the post of Sanitary Worker, which is the lowest post in the Municipality.
12. In the light of the above, the Writ Petitions are misconceived. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. All the Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
ajr To
1. The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Town Panchayat Kuralagam Chennai 108
3. The District Collector Trichi District Trichi
4. The Executive Officer Mettupalayam Town Panchayat Trichi District Trichi