Madras High Court
T.P.Subramaniam vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 3 August, 2021
W.A.No.389/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.389 of 2020
T.P.Subramaniam .. Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Technical Education,
53, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
3. The Merger Committee,
Directorate of Technical Education,
53, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
4. The Commissioner of Sugar,
Periyar Building,
690, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
5. The Managing Director-cum-Chairman,
Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar
Mills Polytechnic College,
Palacode, Dharmapuri-636 808.
6. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic College,
Co-operative Sugar Mills Campus,
Palacode, Dharmapuri-636 808. ..Respondents/Respondents
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/10
W.A.No.389/2020
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 17.02.2020 in W.P.No.19439 of 2018.
***
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan
State Government Counsel
JUDGEMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Questioning the correctness of the order of the writ Court dated
17.02.2020 made in W.P.No.19439 of 2018, the instant appeal is
instituted.
2. The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19439 of 2018,
who had challenged the order of the first respondent dated 12.06.2019
and sought a consequential direction to the first respondent to sanction
the Junior Draughting Officer/Draughtsman Grade III post and absorb
him as Junior Draughting Officer/Draughtsman Grade III in the sixth
respondent Government Polytechnic College, Palacode.
3. The writ petitioner had initially joined the fifth respondent
College in the year 1987 as Pump Operator on 01.07.1987. He was
regularized in the post on 06.07.1989 and vide proceedings dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/10
W.A.No.389/2020
27.11.2006, he was promoted as Draughtsman/Civil with a revised pay
scale. He continued to serve the institution till 03.07.2018 as
Draughtsman for about 31 years without break or blemish. While so, by
G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 30.01.2018, Dharmapuri District Co-operative
Sugar Mills Polytechnic College (DDCSM), Palacode, run by the Sugar
Mills was agreed to be converted into the Government Polytechnic
College, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. As per the said
Government Order, absorption of 87 staff, including 43 teaching, 24
technical posts, 14 administrative staff and six basic staff was
sanctioned.
3.1. The petitioner claims that he is one among the 43 teaching
staff. A time table was also prepared for Civil Engineering Department
specifying period allotted to the petitioner, namely, CED-I and CED-II.
However, the post in which the petitioner was serving was excluded by
the Merger Committee. It was the Merger Committee that was
constituted by the second respondent, which decided the absorption and
accommodation of the regular staff of the Polytechnic College as against
the sanctioned post. Though the petitioner claimed that he was fully
qualified to be the regular staff and had the required qualification to be
absorbed into the sixth respondent Government Polytechnic College, he
was excluded from being absorbed. The writ petitioner was also kept
away from the services from 02.07.2018. The sixth respondent had not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/10
W.A.No.389/2020
informed the petitioner of any reason for keeping him away from the
services from July 2018.
3.2. According to the writ petitioner, the first respondent did not
wait for the report of the Merger Committee before taking the decision
and passed the impugned order on 12.06.2019. The first respondent had
passed the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner to
absorb him as Government employee in Government Polytechnic College
or any appropriate Government Polytechnic College as Draughtsman
Civil, upon considering his representations dated 03.07.2018 and
09.07.2018. Based on the same, the Director of Technical Education had
communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.47901/H3/2018, dated
27.06.2019 that his representations could not be considered favourably
as the post of Junior Draughting Officer/Draughtsman Grade III has not
been sanctioned in the Government Polytechnic College, Palacode and
there is also no rule to absorb the petitioner in any other Government
Polytechnic College. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed.
4. The learned State Government Counsel submitted that the
post of the petitioner was not sanctioned one and therefore, the Merger
Committee could not consider the same. The learned Government
Counsel also relied on the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.3926
of 2019, which was considered by the learned Single Judge. Based on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/10
W.A.No.389/2020
above referred Division Bench judgment, the writ Court had directed the
Merger Committee to decide the case of the writ petitioner and intimate
the decision to him and the Government. It was further observed by the
writ Court that the writ petitioner had put in long number of years of
service and he cannot be kept away from service, all of a sudden only on
the ground that the post was not sanctioned and directed the petitioner
to submit a representation to the Merger Committee along with the
required documents and the Merger Committee was directed to take
appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner. The decision taken by
the Merger Committee shall be placed before the Government and the
Government was directed to pass appropriate orders based on the
recommendations of the Merger Committee. Aggrieved by the said
direction given by the Writ Court, the above appeal has been preferred.
5. It is the only contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that admittedly the post was not sanctioned and the Merger
Committee would negative the writ petitioner's claim in the absence of
the sanctioned post. On the said apprehension, the order passed in the
Writ Petition is challenged. It is further apprehended by him that the
Merger Committee itself is constituted by the first respondent
Government and without setting aside the order passed by the first
respondent dated 12.06.2019, the Merger Committee will once again
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/10
W.A.No.389/2020
would furnish the same as a reason for rejecting the claim of the writ
petitioner. In this regard, the impugned order in the writ petition dated
12.06.2019 is usefully quoted hereunder :
"I am directed to invite attention to the reference fourth
cited and to state that the Government have examined the
representations of the petitioner Thiru.T.P.Subramaniam dated
03.07.2018 and 09.07.2018, based on your report, the
Government have decided to reject the petitioner's request to
absorb him as Government Employee in Government Polytechnic
College, Palacode/Appropriate Government Polytechnics as
Draughtsman (Civil) vide Government Letter in the reference
fourth cited, since the post of Junior Draughting Officer/
Draughtsman Grade-III has not been sanctioned in Government
Polytechnic College, Palacode by the Government and there is no
rule provision for the absorption in any other Government
Polytechnics.
2. I am, therefore, to request you to include the particulars
regarding disposal of the representations of the petitioner dated
03.07.2018 and 09.07.2018 vide Government Letter (D) No.152,
Higher Education (B2) Department, dated 12.06.2019 and there is
no rule provision for the absorption of the petitioner in any other
Government Polytechnic Colleges and then to file Counter Affidavit
in W.P.No.19439 of 2018 on behalf of Principal Secretary, after
vetted by Special Government Pleader, High Court of Madras,
Chennai, if needed."
6. The learned counsel for the appellant also invited the
attention of this Court to the time table for 2018 issued by the
Government Polytechnic College, Palacode, wherein, it is mentioned that
one T.Prabha, Lecturer/Civil and T.P.Subramaniam, Draughtsman, who is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/10
W.A.No.389/2020
the appellant herein, are allotted for CED I. Therefore, it cannot be
accepted that the Civil Engineering Department does not require the
services of the Draughtsman. The learned Government Advocate
mentioned that the Lecturer appointed herself has taken the role of the
Draughtsman and there is no separate post for Draughtsman. Besides,
when there is no requirement for the said post of Draughtsman, the
same could not have been sanctioned and the petitioner could not have
been absorbed in the second respondent College.
7. As per G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 30.01.2018, the Merger
Committee shall be constituted for absorption and accommodation of
regular staff of DDCSM Polytechnic College in the above created posts
and the Committee shall decide terms and conditions of their absorption,
staff shall be absorbed only against the sanctioned post and excess staff
will not be taken over till such time, the final terms and conditions are
decided the staff will be paid only the existing pay scales, as they are
presently drawing.
8. Admittedly, the post of the appellant is a regular post and
though the regular staff and their corresponding posts were sanctioned in
the above Government Order, the post of Draughtsman Grade III alone
was not sanctioned for unknown reasons. Though the Writ Court had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/10
W.A.No.389/2020
directed to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner by the Merger
Committee, since the order impugned passed by the first respondent
dated 12.06.2019 was not specifically set aside by the learned Single
Judge, it is argued that the Merger Committee would once again reject
the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the post is not sanctioned.
9. In view of the above contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the order of the first
respondent dated 12.06.2019 has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set
aside. The other directions as has been given in paragraph 12 of the Writ
Court order would stand confirmed.
10. We would like to add that de hors the fact that the post of
Draughtsman is not sanctioned as had been stated in the impugned order
of the first respondent, the Merger Committee is directed to decide and
consider the qualifications of the appellant by scrutinizing the required
documents and also the requirement of the post of Draughtsman for the
Civil Engineering Department. Based on the recommendations of the
Merger Committee, the first respondent is directed to consider either
sanctioning the post of Draughtsman or deploying him in any other
Government Polytechnic College or for a suitable post in any other
establishment under the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8/10
W.A.No.389/2020
11. With the above directions, the writ appeal is allowed in part.
However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (K.R., J.)
03.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
gg
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Technical Education,
53, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
3. The Merger Committee,
Directorate of Technical Education,
53, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
4. The Commissioner of Sugar,
Periyar Building, 690, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
5. The Managing Director-cum-Chairman,
Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar
Mills Polytechnic College,
Palacode, Dharmapuri-636 808.
6. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic College,
Co-operative Sugar Mills Campus,
Palacode, Dharmapuri-636 808.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 9/10
W.A.No.389/2020
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.389 of 2020
03.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 10/10
