Madras High Court
P.Saravanan vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 6 March, 2013
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.03.2013
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
W.P.No.10234 of 2008
P.Saravanan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Higher Education (E-1) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Region, Thirunelveli-2.
4. Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science,
Rep. by its Secretary, Neyyoor-629 802.
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for records of the respondents 1, 2 and 3, especially the 1st respondent relating to his proceedings made in Govt. Letter No.19984/E2/2007-4 Higher Education (E-2) department, dated 11.02.2008 and quash the same as null and voil, illegal and invalid and consequently directing the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to approve the petitioners appointment as Librarian with effect from 22.04.2002, disbursing the arrears of salary entitled to by him together with all allowances besides recognizing his seniority from the said date for all purposes.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Amalraj
For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Ravichandran
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For R4 : Mr.R.Muthukannu
*****
O R D E R
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order issued vide Letter No.19984/E2/2007-4 Higher Education (E-2) department, dated 11.02.2008 with the consequential relief of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to approve the petitioners appointment as Librarian with effect from 22.04.2002 with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner passed SSLC in March 1986 in 1st class and thereafter underwent Master and Professional degree courses and secured 1st class in M.Sc., M.Ed., M.Phil. and MLISC. The petitioner also cleared UGC NET examination for Lectureship held inJuly, 2000 in Library and Information, therefore, he became eligible to hold the post of Librarian.
3. The post of Librarian fell vacant at Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science on 30.06.1999 on retirement of Thiru Kumaravel Renganathan. Though the vacancy fell vacant on 30.06.1999, the Director of Collegiate Education, vide Na.Ka.No.23568/F4/2000-1 dated 02.08.2001, permitting the College to fill up the vacancy for the academic year 2001-2002. Taking note of the educational qualification and merits of the petitioner, he was appointed through employment exchange as Librarian on 22.04.2002. The appointment was made after permission by the 2nd respondent to fill up the vacancy.
4. The testimonials of the petitioner were forwarded to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli for approval, which was approved by the University vide order dated 07.06.2002 with effect from 22.04.2002, i.e. the date of appointment.
5. It is the submission of the petitioner, that inspite of approval by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, the Director of Collegiate Education delayed the approval of petitioners appointment for disbursement of salary without assigning any reasons. The petitioner, on enquiry, came to know, that the approval of petitioner was denied due to the ban imposed with effect from 29.11.2001.
6. The case of petitioner is that the Government of Tamil Nadu vide its Letter No.21245/E2/2002-2 dated 31.01.2003 accorded sanction to approve the six appointments made after 29.11.2001 in Myladuthurai A.V.C.College, on the ground, that the ban dated 29.11.2001, was not applicable to these appointments in A.V.C.College in view of the fact, that though six appointments were made after 29.11.2001, permission to file up six posts were granted prior to 29.11.2001.
7. The further case of petitioner is that the post against which the petitioner was appointed fell vacant on 30.06.1999, therefore, ban was not applicable even in case of petitioner. The approval to fill up six posts was also granted on 02.08.2001, i.e. prior to the ban. Therefore, the petitioners case was identical to the one of Myladuthurai A.V.C.College.
8. It is submitted, that the respondent no.1 vide order dated 22.03.2005 approved the appointment of petitioner by imposing restrictions, that the grant for the post of petitioner will be effective from the date of order dated 22.03.2005, i.e. the date when the appointment was approved by respondent no.1.
9. It was in pursuance to the orders passed by respondent no.1, that the appointment of the petitioner has been approved vide impugned order with effect from 22.03.2005.
10. It is the case of petitioner, that he is now being threatened to accept the appointment with effect from 22.03.2005. Otherwise his appointment will be cancelled. The petitioner filed appeal to challenge the arbitrary and discriminatory order passed by 3rd respondent in approving the appointment of petitioner with effect from 22.03.2005. The appeal also stands rejected.
11. It is pleaded, that the petitioner filed W.P.No.21770 of 2007 for issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari to quash the Government letter dated 09.05.2006 and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 22.04.2002 with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was allowed on 27.08.2007 with a direction to the respondents to consider approving appointment of petitioner in the light of proceedings dated 31.01.2003 and 31.05.2004.
12. The Government Letter No. 21245/E2/2002-2 dated 31.01.2003 deals with exemption from ban of the posts, which was approved prior to the ban order, whereas the order dated 31.05.2004 deals with the grant of exemption in favour Ethiraj Womens College, exempting six appointments made after the ban order in view of prior sanction.
13. The request of petitioner was rejected, on the ground, that appointment made in the case of A.V.C. and Ethiraj College was in pursuance to the sanction prior to the ban order and that the appointment was made by calling names from employment exchange and furthermore the appointments were made within 3 to 4 days of imposing of ban, whereas the petitioner was appointed on 22.04.2002, i.e. long after the ban order.
14. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner, on the ground of it being arbitrary, discriminatory, thus violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the artificial differentiation between the persons appointed in the A.V.C. and Ethiraj Colleges, was not permissible in law, as the ratio decision of the State Government was that all the posts, which were approved for being filled up prior to the ban order were exempted from the ban order. The case of petitioner also fell in that category, as it is not disputed, that the post against which the petitioner was appointed fell vacant on 30.06.1999 and the sanction to fill up those posts granted on 02.08.2001, i.e. prior to the ban imposed on 29.11.2001.
16. The delay in filling up of the post by respondents cannot be the ground to reject the legitimate claim of the petitioner.
17. On consideration, this Court finds, that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending, that the action of respondents in approving the appointment of petitioner from 22.04.2002 is on the face of it arbitrary, thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it is not disputed, that the petitioner was not only appointed on 22.04.2002, but also has been performing duties after having been appointed by following due process of law then in force.
18. The petitioner could not be denied the benefit of service rendered, on technical plea. The 2nd respondent, having permitted the respondent college to fill up the post by appointing suitable persons, cannot deny approval merely on ground of ban, though not applicable.
19. It was not open to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to deny the approval from the date of appointment, merely because the ban was imposed before the order of appointment could be issued without there being any fault of the petitioner.
20. The stand of learned Additional Government Pleader, that the impugned order has been passed keeping in view the fact, that the appointment of petitioner was after the ban, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court, cannot be accepted, as it was not open to the State to have artificial classification between two sets of similarly situated persons, merely based on the date of appointment. The impugned order, therefore on the face of it, is arbitrary and discriminatory, thus hit by Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
21. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are ordered to be quashed. The writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to approve the appointment of petitioner as Librarian with effect from 22.04.2002 with all consequential benefits. The consequential benefits flowing from this order be paid to the petitioner within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
22. No costs.
06.03.2013 Index: Yes Internet: Yes ar VINOD K.SHARMA, J.
ar To
1. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education (E-1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Thirunelveli-2.
4. Lakshmipuram College of Arts and Science, Rep. by its Secretary, Neyyoor-629 802.
Kanyakumari District.
W.P.No.10234 of 200806.03.2013