Madras High Court
M.Palanisamy vs The Director Of Town Panchayats on 24 October, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
2024:MHC:3620
W.A.(MD)No.990 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 03.10.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.990 of 2018
M.Palanisamy ... Appellant
vs
1.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam, Chennai 600 108.
2.The District Collector,
Karur District, Karur.
3.The Executive Officer,
Punjaipugalur Town Panchayat,
Karur District.
4.M.Meena ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order of this Court dated 12.03.2015 passed in W.P(MD)No.4507 of
2014.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.990 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.A.Maheswaran
for Mr.R.Kathiresa Perumal
For R1 to R3 : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
For R4 :Mr.AN.Ramanathan
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4507 of 2014 aggrieved by a
common order passed in the said Writ Petition and in W.P.(MD)No.10845
of 2011 which had been filed by the fourth respondent, has filed the present
Writ Appeal.
2.W.P.(MD)No.4507 of 2014 had been filed by the appellant herein
in the nature of a Certiorari seeking records relating to an order issued by
the third respondent in the Writ Petition, the Executive Officer,
Punjaipugalur Town Panchayat in Karur District dated 25.02.2014 and to
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.This Writ Petition had been heard along with W.P.(MD)No.10845
of 2011 which had been filed by the fourth respondent again in the nature of
a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to an order passed by
the third respondent therein, the Executive Officer, Punjaipugalur Town
Panchayat in Karur District, dated 23.08.2011 promoting the fifth
respondent therein/the appellant herein/the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.
4507 of 2014 to the post of Public Health Maistry or Sanitary Maistry in the
said Panchayat and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3
therein to promote the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10845 of 2011 to the post
of Public Health Maistry or Sanitary Maistry.
4.The learned Single Judge had passed a common order, dated
12.03.2015 in both the Writ Petitions and also in Cont.P.(MD)No.408 of
2014, which had been filed by the appellant herein and had dismissed W.P.
(MD)No.4507 of 2014. The learned Single Judge had also observed that
since the promotion given to the appellant herein had been cancelled by way
of passing a reversal order, W.P.(MD)No.10845 of 2011 filed by the fourth
respondent herein had become infructuous and the same was also dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Contempt Petition was closed. Questioning the dismissal of W.P.
(MD)No.4507 of 2014, the Writ Petitioner therein had filed the present Writ
Appeal.
5.The appellant, M.Palanisamy was initially appointed as NMR in
Town Panchayat service in the year 1987. His services had been regularised
in the post of Motor Pump Operator with effect from 23.06.2006. He was
posted at Aravakurichi Town Panchayat in Karur District. According to
him, the post of Pump Operator is categorised as basic service of Town
Panchayat services. He claimed that the next promotional avenue was
Sanitary Maistry/Sanitary Supervisor. He had sought such promotion. But,
however, complaining that his junior had been promoted, he had filed W.P.
(MD)No.1685 of 2008 in which, an order was passed on 17.12.2008
directing the respondents therein to consider his claim for promotion.
6.He further claimed that the Executive Officer of Aravakurichi Town
Panchayat had issued proceedings on 18.05.2009 stating that the promotion
would be considered, when vacancy arose. Subsequently, he was
transferred to Punjaipugalur Town Panchayat by proceedings dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
06.10.2009. He was then promoted to the post of Sanitary Supervisor by the
proceedings of the third respondent, the Executive Officer, Punjaipugalur
Town Panchayat, by proceedings dated 23.08.2011. He was then
transferred to Puliyur Town Panchayat owing to vacancy in the post of
Sanitary Supervisor. He was then re-transferred to Punjaipugalur Town
Panchayat in Karur District on 21.11.2013, as Sanitary Supervisor. At that
time, the third respondent, the Executive Officer, Punjaipugalur Town
Panchayat in Karur District, issued the order impugned in the Writ Petition,
dated 25.02.2014 reverting him back to the post of Water Supply Pump
Operator. This order was challenged in the Writ Petition filed by him.
7.The fourth respondent in the Writ Appeal, M.Meena had filed W.P.
(MD)No.10845 of 2011 questioning the proceedings of the third
respondent, the Executive Officer, Punjaipugalur Town Panchayat dated
23.08.2011 by which the appellant herein had been promoted to the post of
Sanitary Supervisor. She claimed that he was ineligible to be so promoted
and on the other hand, she was eligible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.Both these Writ Petitions and also a Contempt Petition filed by the
appellant were taken up together by the learned Single Judge and by a
common order, dated 12.03.2015, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in
W.P.(MD)No.4507 of 2014 was dismissed, which in effect, upheld the
reversion of the appellant from the post of Sanitary Supervisor back to the
post of Water Supply Pump Operator. This consequently meant that
M.Meena, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10845 of 2011/fourth respondent
herein was promoted to the post of Sanitary Maistry/Sanitary Supervisor.
9.Heard the arguments advanced by Mr.A.Maheshwaran, learned
Counsel appearing for the Writ Appellants, Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and
Mr.AN.Ramanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondents.
10.It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant
that it is a cardinal principle of service jurisprudence that there should be a
promotion avenue for every Government servant and there cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stagnation throughout the period of service. It was contended that the
appellant who was working as Water Pump Operator had been correctly
promoted as Sanitary Supervisor and wrongly reverted back.
11.The learned Additional Advocate General however contested that
particular fact. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the
feeder post for promotion to Sanitary Maistry were Public Health Workers
or Sanitary Workers and Scavengers or Sweepers or Thottis. It had been
contended that the appellant as a Motor Pump Operator cannot therefore be
promoted as Sanitary Maistry or Sanitary Supervisor and that he had been
wrongly promoted and on realising that mistake, he had been correctly
reverted back to his original post.
12.The learned Additional Advocate General pointed that there has
been reversion from the promotional post of all individuals who had been
similarly promoted. It was contended by the learned Additional Advocate
General that the appellant will have to be promoted as Junior Assistant, but
only in accordance with seniority and an assurance was given out that if
there is a vacancy and if the appellant was the senior most to be considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in that vacancy and that
certainly the respondents would promote him. It had also been contended
that the Town Panchayat now become a Municipality and therefore, the
Rules have changed, but the appellant will have to await his turn in
accordance with seniority for being promoted. In this connection, the
learned Additional Advocate General also produced the seniority list
maintained by the respondents and stated that in accordance with the
seniority list, promotion would be granted.
13.The learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent
contended that the appellant had been wrongly promoted and correctly
reverted back and that the fourth respondent had been correctly promoted.
He therefore urged that the Writ Appeal should be dismissed.
14.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the material records.
15.The Writ Appellant had originally joined as NMR in Town
Panchayat Services in the year 1987. His services had been regularised in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the post of Pump Operator with effect from 23.06.2006. He was then posted
to Aravakurichi Town Panchayat in Karur District. He sought promotion to
the post of Sanitary Maistry/Sanitary Supervisor. The feeder post for the
post of Sanitary Maistry had been stipulated in the Tamil Nadu Town
Panchayat Establishment (Qualification and Recruitment of Office
Assistants) Rules, 1988. It is as follows:
“Class-I, Category -1 : Office Assistant in Office
Class-II, Category-1 : Public Health Maistries &
Sanitary Maistries
Category -2 :Public Health Workers or
Sanitary Workers or
Scavengers or Sweepers or
Thottis
Class – III :Gardener, Watchman,
Waterman-cum- Gardener,
Waterman-cum-Watchman
turn Cook”
16.It is thus seen that the post of Sanitary Maistry comes under
category I of Class II. The feeder posts are the posts in Category-II of
Class-II. They are Public Health Worker or Sanitary Workers or Scavengers
or Sweepers or Thottis. The appellant herein had been working as Water
Pump Operator. His post is therefore not a feeder post for promotion to
Sanitary Maistry/Sanitary Supervisor. The official respondents have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wrongly promoted him and had correctly reverted back him to the post.
17.The learned Counsel for the appellant fervently raised a plea that
some promotion should be granted to the appellant, as he had been
languishing in the post right from the time when he joined. But,
unfortunately, we also have to consider those who are similarly awaiting
promotion and who are working in the actual feeder post and who are alone
eligible for promotion. The promotion avenue available for the appellant is
to be promoted as Junior Assistant. He cannot be so promoted overlooking
the credentials of his seniors. The said promotion will have to be done only
on the seniority basis.
18.The learned Additional Advocate General presented before us the
seniority list. There are three individuals, who are senior to the appellant
herein and who are now working in the very same post as the appellant is
working and who are eligible to be promoted as Junior Assistant. If
vacancy arises in the post of Junior Assistant to be filled through promotion
and if the appellant is eligible, then we do not find any reason why the
official respondents would deny him that opportunity. As on date, that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
promotional avenue had not yet arisen. The Court cannot step into the
shoes of the Executive and issue a direction for promotion of the appellant
overriding other similarly placed individuals, who also awaiting promotion.
They all have to be considered in accordance with the vacancy which arise.
19.The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the
observation of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.1685 of
2008 in the very same Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner earlier. At
that time, the learned Single Judge had again observed that the contention of
the appellant herein to be considered for promotion was not tenable but
however, while dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge had
granted him the liberty to make a representation to be promoted. But that
would not indicate that the appellant should be promoted ignoring others
who are also awaiting in the line and similarly placed like the appellant.
20.We are afraid that we cannot interfere with the order of the learned
Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had very correctly observed that the
post in which the appellant is now employed is not the feeder category for
the promotion to the Sanitary Supervisor/Sanitary Maistry. Therefore, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
view of that particular fact, which fact cannot be disputed or denied, we
hold that the appeal filed by the appellant herein will necessary have to
suffer an order of dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No
costs.
[C.V.K., J.] & [R.P., J.]
24.10.2024
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
To
1.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam, Chennai 600 108.
2.The District Collector,
Karur District, Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
