Madras High Court
S.Gururajan … vs The Registrar on 8 August, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 16.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
S.Gururajan … Petitioner
Vs
1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, High Court Campus,
Chennai – 600 104.
2.Union of India
Rep., by The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.Superintendent of Railway Mail Service,
Chennai Sorting Division,
Chennai – 600 008.
4. The Head Record Officer,
Chennai Sorting Division,
Chennai- 600 008. ... Respondents
Page No.1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the concerned records
relating to the impugned order dated 30.12.2020 given in O.A.No.1070 of
2016 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Ramaswamy Rajarajan
For Respondent : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi SCGSC for R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)
The instant Writ Petition had been preferred as against the order of
the Administrative Tribunal, which had rejected the Writ petitioner's chal-
lenge to the order passed by the second respondent herein in rejecting the
claim of the petitioner seeking for counting his officiating service in the
Group-D post for determining his seniority.
2.Heard Mr.S.Ramaswamy Rajarajan, learned counsel ap-
pearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, learned Senior Cent-
ral Government Standing counsel appearing for the second re-
spondent.
3.The case of the petitioner is that he had been originally ap-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
pointed as an Extra Departmental Mail-man in the year 1984 and based
upon his seniority in the Extra Departmental Cadre I, he was selected as
an approved candidate for Group D promotion by the Departmental
Promotion Committee on 22.03.2000. He was ordered to work as a
Group D on officiating capacity in a regular vacancy by the fourth re-
spondent vide order dated 05.09.2000. However, he was absorbed in the
regular vacancy on 24.05.2003 and on completing his probation, his
services in Group D cadre was confirmed by order dated 25.08.2005.
Thereafter, the petitioner had made a representation to the third respond-
ent herein seeking to count his service rendered during the period between
05.09.2000 to 23.05.2003 in the officiated capacity also for the purposes
of his seniority. Since no response had emanated from the third respond-
ent, he had made a further representation on 05.03.2007 to the fourth re-
spondent. However, the said representation was rejected by the third re-
spondent contending that even though he was approved for promotion, the
said promotion could not be granted due to the ban that had been imposed
and immediately after the ban was lifted, he had been appointed in the
regular vacancy from 26.05.2003. The uninterrupted officiating period
was not considered by the third respondent. Hence, he had preferred an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
appeal to the second respondent. But however, the same was also rejec-
ted by the second respondent by order dated 18.08.2010. Hence, he
was constrained to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by
preferring O.A.No.1472 of 2012, and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 26.11.2013, had set aside the order passed by the
second and third respondents and had further direction to consider
the case of the petitioner by referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court. Without considering the case of the petitioner on the proper
perspective particularly on the judgment that had been relied upon by the
petitioner and as recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated
26.11.2013, the second respondent had again rejected the claim of
the petitioner on the very same grounds. According to him, the Tribunal
in the impugned order had not considered these facts and had referred to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case to conclude
that there cannot be any financial burden that could be placed on the au-
thority.
4. He would further contend that the Tribunal had also erred in re-
lying upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
related to the promotions where it was held that promotees were not en-
titled to count their adhoc service for the purpose of computing their seni-
ority. In this connection, he would also rely upon the various
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as
a) D.P.Doval & Ors., vs. The Chief Secretary Government of UP
and Ors., reported in 1984 AIR 1527
b)L.Chandra Krishna Singh vs. State of Manipur & Ors.,
reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 1460;
c) Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors., vs. UOI & Ors., reported in 2000
SCC (L&S) 1055; and
d) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., vs. V.Subba Rao
& Ors., reported in 2004 SCC (L&S) 201
and contend that when the appointments having made based upon the
meritorious process, then he would be entitled for counting his services on
the officiating capacity. According to him, these aspects have not been
considered by the Tribunal and hence, he would seek interference with the
order passed by the Tribunal.
5.Countering his arguments, the learned Senior Standing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that the
petitioner had been working as an Extra Departmental Staff and based
upon his seniority alone, he was considered for the post of Group D by the
Departmental promotion Committee. He would further contend that even
though the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion, since there
was no vacancy at the relevant point of time, he was not promoted and
when his turn was to be taken up. There was a ban on recruitment by the
Department in the year 2000 and therefore, the petitioner was not
accommodated in the vacancy which arose in the future. But however, the
ban was lifted and since taking into consideration of a vacancy for the
year 2001, the petitioner was regularly appointed to the post of Group D
in 2003 and his probation was also confirmed in the year 2005. Further
the order that appointed him on officiating capacity in Group D cannot be
treated as filling up of any substantial vacancy, as the said order also
indicates that the same had been made only temporarily i.e., on an adhoc
basis. He would further contend that the petitioner had also admitted that
he had been promoted to Group D from the post of Extra Departmental
Mail-man based upon his seniority. According to him, the judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all judgments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
which relate to a meritorious recruitment process and is not based upon
seniority simplicitor. However, the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal
was a judgment which relates to a promotion. Hence, he contended that
the petitioner cannot draw equality based upon the judgments relied upon
by him, and his case is only governed by the judgment of the Apex Court
with regard to the promotion. Hence, he would submit that there is no
infirmity in the order impugned before this Court.
6.We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on re-
cord.
7.It is an admitted case that the petitioner had been promoted as a
Group D person from the cadre of Extra Departmental Mail-Man Grade I.
The said promotion is based upon seniority and not on merits. He was
also appointed to the Group D post in officiating capacity on temporary
basis.
8.As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all
relates to a person who had been appointed on officiating capacity
pursuant to a meritorious selection in the recruitment process as they
could not be recruited for one or other reasons.
9.In this case, the petitioner had not gone through any mer-
itorious selection and had been promoted only on the basis of his seni-
ority. The Tribunal had rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1606 of 2020, dated 14.02.2020 in the
case of Vinod Giri Goswami & Ors. vs. State of Utharkand & Ors.,
where the Hon'ble Apex Court in categorical terms had held that the pro-
motees are not entitled to count their adhoc service for the purpose of
computing their seniority. It has also been brought on record that the
petitioner even though was in the officiating capacity as Group D em-
ployee, he had been paid his service benefits only based upon his
substantive post namely GDS post and not on the pay scale of Group D
cadre.
10.In such event, we do not find any infirmity in the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
impugned before us and in fine, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(D.K.K., A.C.J.) (K.B., J.)
08.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
pbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
To
1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, High Court Campus,
Chennai – 600 104.
2.Union of India
Rep., by The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.Superintendent of Railway Mail Service,
Chennai Sorting Division,
Chennai – 600 008.
4. The Head Record Officer,
Chennai Sorting Division,
Chennai- 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
Pbn
Pre-Delivery Order in
Writ Petition No.19776 of 2022
08.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
