Madras High Court
K.L.Sasirajan vs The Chennai Port Trust on 11 October, 2022
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 11.10.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
WP.Nos.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
K.L.Sasirajan
... Petitioner in W.P.No.21826 of 2010
S.Meganadhan
... Petitioner in W.P.No.21827 of 2010
K.Seemon
... Petitioner in W.P.No.21828 of 2010
Vs.
1.The Chennai Port Trust,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
2.The Traffic Manager,
Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
...Respondents in all W.P.Nos.
Common Prayer in W.P.Nos.21826 and 21827 of 2010: Writ Petition is
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the order of the 2nd
Page No.1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
Respondent made in his proceedings in No.A2/9460/09/T, dated 30.12.2009
and quash the same and direct the Respondents to promote the petitioner as
Coupling Porter Grade-II in Chennai Port Trust from the date of the
immediate junior's promotion i.e. on 07.09.2009 with all consequential
benefits.
Prayer in W.P.No.21828 of 2010: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
call for records relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent made in his
proceedings in No.A2/9460/09/T, dated 10.2009 (received on 23.10.2009)
and quash the same and direct the Respondents to promote the petitioner as
Coupling Porter Grade-II in Chennai Port Trust from the date of the
promotion of similarly placed persons in the wait list open quota in the Panel
dated 11.02.1992 bearing No.A2/9307/91/T with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioners in all W.P.Nos. : Mr.A.S.Kaizer
For Respondents in all W.P.Nos : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
COMMON ORDER
Page No.2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
Writ Petition Nos.21826 and 21827 of 2010 are filed to call for records
relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent made in his proceedings in
No.A2/9460/09/T, dated 30.12.2009 and quash the same and direct the
Respondents to promote the petitioner as Coupling Porter Grade-II in
Chennai Port Trust from the date of their immediate junior's promotion i.e. on
07.09.2009, with all consequential benefits.
Writ Petition No.21828 of 2010 is filed to call for records relating to
the order of the 2nd Respondent made in his proceedings in
No.A2/9460/09/T, dated 10.2009 (received on 23.10.2009) and quash the
same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Coupling Porter
Grade-II in Chennai Port Trust from the date of the promotion of similarly
placed persons in the wait list open quota in the Panel dated 11.02.1992
bearing No.A2/9307/91/T, with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners joined as Mazdoor
in Engineering (Civil) Department of the Chennai Port Trust on 13.02.1984,
27.01.1984 and 19.08.1982 respectively and thereafter transferred on
Page No.3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
23.09.1992 as Mazdoor (Shore Labour) in the Traffic Department of the
Chennai Port Trust. The petitioners rendered 26 years of unblemished
service. During September 1991, the petitioners were asked to attend the
interview for selection to the post of Coupling Porter Grade-II in the Traffic
Department of the Chennai Port Trust. As per the then existing rules, 50% of
the vacancies had to be filled up by the employees of the parent Department
i.e. Traffic Department and the other 50% from other Departments (Open
quota).
3. According to the petitioners, they attended the interview and
thereafter on 11.02.1992, the 2nd respondent published a panel of candidates
selected for appointment as Coupling Porter Grade-II, wherein 29 candidates
were selected, out of which 17 candidates belonged to the Traffic Department
and 18 candidates to the Other Departments (Open quota) and remaining
were shown as wait listed candidates for appointment against future
vacancies.
4. On the basis of the panel thus published, selected candidates with
Page No.4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
ranks 1 to 10 were immediately appointed as Coupling Porter Grade-II in the
Traffic Department and in April 1993, 12 more persons were appointed from
the panel from SI.No.11 to 22. Two persons immediately joined the posts and
at that stage, one of the candidates filed writ petition in W.P.No.9187 of 1993
challenging the validity of the panel.
5. According to the petitioners, in the writ petition an application for
injunction was filed and the same was declined by this Court. The
respondents did not give any appointment for the remaining candidates in the
panel and therefore some of the selected candidates filed impleading
application in the said W.P. and sought appointment. The said application
was dismissed based on the representation of the Chennai Port Trust that the
empanelled petitioners would be getting their appointment's. According to the
petitioners, all the persons in the select list, as also waiting list of the Traffic
Department, were appointed leaving only the wait listed candidates belonging
to the Open quota. The petitioners further submitted that the respondents
denied the posting to the petitioners on the ground that settlement had been
reached between the respondents and the Union Office bearers and that the
Page No.5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
waiting list of Open quota had expired due to lapse of one year from the date
of publication of the panel.
6. According to the petitioner's there was no specific rule restricting the
validity of the selection list to one year. The petitioners' further contended
that the existing posts were filled beyond the period of one year. The
petitioners' therefore contended that the stand of the respondents that the
panel expired on the lapse of one year, was untenable. The petitioners' further
stated that due to the arbitrary action of the respondents in not appointing
them to the post of Coupling Porter Grade-II by ignoring the waiting list, the
candidates in SI.Nos.6,8,10 and 11 in the wait list of the open quota filed
Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.11309 of 1996 for a direction to
the respondents to make appointment strictly as per the seniority in the panel
given therein. This Court, vide order dated 07.08.2006, allowed the said writ
petition with a direction to the respondents to promote the persons in SI.No.1
to 11 and 13 to 18 in the open quota, irrespective of the fact that they
approached the Court or not.
Page No.6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
7. According to the petitioners, inspite of above order of this Court, the
respondents did not appoint the petitioners to the said post though the
petitioners were waiting for such appointment. The petitioners further stated
that the respondents filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1367 of 2006 before this
Court, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2006
made in W.P.No.11309 of 1996 on the main ground that the Court ought not
to have directed the respondents to appoint those persons who had not
approached the Court.
8. The Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal on 16.06.2009
restricting the relief granted by the learned Single Judge only to the
petitioners in the said writ petition. The petitioners made a representation
dated 07.12.2009 requesting the respondents to appoint them to the post of
Coupling Porter Grade-II by referring to the order of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.11309 of 1996. The respondents, vide impugned order, rejected
the petitioners request. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
approached this Court with the above writ petition.
9. The respondents filed common counter affidavit denying all the
Page No.7/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
contentions raised by the petitioner's in the writ petitions.
10. From the counter of the respondents, it is seen that the Selection
Committee, after the interview, had selected 29 candidates, out of which, 15
candidates were under the Traffic Department Quota and 14 under the Open
Quota as per Roster and the Select Committee further recommended 35
candidates (17 from Traffic Department and 18 from Open Quota) to be kept
in the waiting list. Accordingly, a panel was published vide notice dated
11.02.1992 empanelling 29 selected candidates for appointment as Coupling
Porter Grade-II and wait listed 35 candidates for appointment against future
vacancies.
11. According to the respondents, the normal validity period of a select
list was one year from the date of its drawal as per Government's order and
further extension of 6 months was given only in exceptional cases by the
Chairman of the Port Trust. The select list for the post of C.P.Gr.II which was
drawn on 11.02.1992, expired on 10.02.1993 and the same was extended
upto 10.08.1993. Initially, 10 candidates listed in the select list were offered
Page No.8/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
appointment as C.P.Gr.II and they also joined duty. Thereafter, the MPT
Railwaymen's Union, which represented the majority of the workers of the
Railway division, raised an Industrial Dispute over the selection and the
matter was referred to Assistant Labour Commission for conciliation. Based
on the conciliation proceedings held in April 1993, 12 posts of Coupling
Porter Grade-II were filled up as against 12 existing vacancies from the
regular list and out of 12 candidates, 2 candidates who had reported to the
Trust's Medical Officer for medical examination were found medically fit and
they joined duty on 13.05.1993. In the meanwhile, various Writ Petitions
were filed by the selected candidates and as per the Court orders and also due
to the exigencies of the work, 10 candidates listed in the select list were
appointed on ad-hoc basis during September 1993. On appointment of 10
candidates from select list, the MPT Railwaymen's Union went on strike and
to resolve the strike, discussions were held by the Administration with the
representatives of the MPT Railwaymen's Union and as a result, a
Memorandum of Settlement was entered on 25.11.1993 and though the terms
of the settlement were extracted in the counter it would suffice to state that as
per the terms of the settlement, the validity of the C.P.Gr.II drawn in
Page No.9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
February 1992 was agreed to have expired on 10.08.1993. It was further
agreed that the candidates in the Select list in SI.Nos.23 to 29 under item (i)
in the Regular list and the candidates under SI.Nos.1 to 17 under the wait list
(Departmental Quota) and SI.Nos. 1 to 18 under item (ii) in the wait list Open
Quota, became ineligible for appointment. It was one of the terms of
settlement that the selection for the post of C.P.Gr.II would be confined to
employees occupying the posts of Gateman, Maistry (S&W) and Mazdoor
(S&W) of the Traffic Department and Mazdoor (Permanent Way) of
Engineering Department and that the respondents would take immediate steps
to revise the manner of appointment with the approval of the Board. It was
further submitted by the respondents that as there was urgent need of men for
carrying on the Port operations, 17 employees from the Traffic Department
which included those bearing numbers 25 & 29 in the original select list and
SI.No.1 to 3 & 5 of the candidates in the category of Gatemen, Maistry
(S&W) and Mazdoor (S&W) i.e, the feeder category of the Traffic
department were offered appointment as Coupling Porter Grade-II, purely on
temporary and ad-hoc basis during December, 1993.
Page No.10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
12. The respondents further submitted that the manner of appointment
was amended on 27.06.1997 to the effect that 90% of the vacancies were to
be filled by inviting applications from the employees in the category of
Gateman, Maistry (S&W) and Mazdoor (S&W) of Traffic Department and
the remaining 10% of the vacancies were to be filled from the Mazdoors
(PW) of the Engineering Department. The respondents denied the contention
of the petitioners that there was no regulation restricting the operation of the
select list to a period of one year. In this regard reference was made to Reg.
10(2) of the Madras Port Trust Employees (Appointment, Promotion etc.)
Regulation, 1977 which provided that select list and panel were to be drawn
as per Regulations 7, 8 and 9 and it shall be valid for a period of one year and
extension of further period of six months would be permitted with the
approval of the Chairman. The respondents further submitted that, as per the
existing manner of appointment to the post of C.P.Gr.II, the petitioners who
were working as Mazdoor (Shore labour) were not eligible for appointment to
the post of Coupling Porter Grade-II. The respondents further submitted that
the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the order passed in
W.P.No.11309 of 1996 on 07.08.2006, as the said order was reversed in
Page No.11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
W.A.No.1367 of 2006 by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Reliance was placed
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Orissa and
Others Vs. Pragnaparamitha Samantha, 1996 (7) SCC 106 for the
proposition that only those who are diligent and approach the Court in time
can be given the relief.
13. The respondents refering to the nature of duties of the Coupling
Porter submitted that the duties of the Coupling Porter are to set the points
and perform the coupling and uncoupling of wagons during the course of
shunting operations and as such, they were required to be able bodied to do
strenuous work. As the petitioners were over 50 years of age, they were unfit
for the said post. The respondents therefore submitted that the petitioners
could not be given any relief on the basis of panel drawn on 11.12.1992, that
too, after lapse of 18 years as against the existing manner of appointment.
The respondents therefore submitted that the writ petitions deserved to be
dismissed.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners were selected in the panel dated 11.02.1992 and their name found
Page No.12/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
place in Serial Number (i) of the waiting list of Open Quota and as such, the
respondent ought to have appointed them to the post of C.P.Grade.II. The
learned counsel further submitted that this Court, vide order dated 07.08.2006
in W.P.No.11309 of 1996, directed the respondents to permit all those
candidates in the waiting list of the Open Quota and therefore the petitioners
were entitled to be appointed and the petitioners had also made representation
seeking appointment, vide representation dated 07.12.2009.
15. In short, the learned counsel submitted that the select panel of 1992
was still live and therefore the petitioners were entitled for appointment to the
post of C.P.Gr.II. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents,
by rejecting the petitioners' representation, have deprived the petitioners the
opportunity to be appointed as C.P.Gr.II. The learned counsel therefore
prayed that writ petitions may be allowed.
16. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents
submitted that the order in W.P.No.11309 of 1996 dated 07.08.2006, was
reversed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.1367 of 2006 dated
Page No.13/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
16.06.2009 and as such, the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed.
The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had submitted their
representation only after the order passed in the Writ Appeal and therefore
the respondents rightly rejected the same. The learned counsel also submitted
that much water has flown under the bridge from the date of the publication
of the select panel and as per the amended manner of appointment, the
petitioners would not be entitled to the appointment sought for.
17. I have considered the submissions of the both the counsels and
perused the materials on record.
18. The petitioners merely rely on the judgment of this Court dated
07.08.2006 in W.P.No.11306 of 1996 to contend that, similarly placed
persons were already appointed and the petitioners alone cannot be deprived
of the benefit of the said order. It is seen that the Hon'ble Division Bench on
Appeal filed by the respondents, has reversed the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and restricted the relief to the petitioners who approached the
Court at the earliest point of time. It is also relevant to note here that the order
Page No.14/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
was passed in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on 07.08.2006 and
the order in the Writ Appeal was passed on 16.06.2009 and it was only
thereafter that the petitioners submitted their representations dated
07.12.2009 and 03.10.2009 to the respondents to operate the panel drawn on
11.12.1992. It is seen that there was a settlement under Section 12(3) of the
ID Act as early as on 25.11.1993 in which an agreement was reached with
Union that the panel drawn in Feb 1992 would expire on the completion of
the extended period of 6 months (i.e) from 10.08.1993. Even the Regulation
of the respondents provided for a period of one year for the operation of panel
with a further extension of 6 months with the approval of the Chairman. It is
further pertinent to note here that there is a lapse of 18 years from the date of
drawal of the panel and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the manner of appointment had changed and the petitioners have
also retired. In the light of all these facts which are not contested by the
petitioners, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioners for appointment
to the post of Coupling Porter Grade-II is not sustainable.
19. It is pertinent to note here that the learned counsel for the
Page No.15/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
respondents has further submitted that the petitioners have superannuated on
various dates and they have also received terminal benefits. Considering all
the above facts, I am of the view that the panel of 11.02.1992 has long lapsed
and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed but without costs.
11.10.2022
Speaking Order: Yes/No
dsn
To
1.The Chennai Port Trust,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
2.The Traffic Manager,
Chennai Port Trust,
Page No.16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
N.MALA, J
(dsn)
Page No.17/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
WP.Nos.21826, 21827 and 21828 of 2010
11.10.2022
Page No.18/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
