Selvakumar v. Deputy Registrar (Housing),Vellore Region,Vellore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 15.02.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P.No.8713 of 2003Selvakumar .. Petitionervs1.The Deputy Registrar (Housing),Vellore Region,Vellore.2.B.Mallapuram Co-operativeHousing society Ltd.,Rep. by its President,Bommidi,Papireddipatti Taluk,Dharmapuri District. .. RespondentsPRAYER:The writ petition filed under article 227 of theConstitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to call forthe records relating to the order made in Na.Ka.7528/2002 Aa., dated12.12.2002 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.For Petitioner ... Mr.S.DoraiamyFor first Respondent ... Mrs.S.Anitha, Govt. Advocate For second Respondent ... Mr.R.M.S.Palniswamy for R2O R D E R The petitioner has filed this writ petition of certiorari incalling for the records pertaining to the order made in Na.Ka.7528/02 Aa., dated 12.12.2002 on the file of the first respondentand to quash the same.2.The petitioner registered his name before the DistrictEmployment Office, Krishnagiri in the year 1993. His qualification isNinth Standard. His Date of Birth is 2.3.1974. The secondrespondent/Society had called for the list of candidates from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri in the year 2001 to fill up the postof an Office Assistant. The Employment Exchange by means of itsproceedings in No.A.No.139/01 dated 06.02.2001 had furnished a listof candidates including the petitioner's name for consideration bythe second respondent. Upon the receipt of the list, the secondrespondent on 24.04.2002 sent an interview letter to the petitionerrequiring him to appear for personal interview on 29.4.2002 at 11.00a.m. The petitioner was selected for the post of Office Assistant inthe second respondent/society and the society passed the resolutionto appoint the petitioner as an Office Assistant and necessary orderswere issued to that effect on 29.04.2002. From 29.04.2002, thepetitioner is serving as an Office Assistant on a consolidated salaryof Rs.500/- p.m.3.The first respondent addressed a communication to the secondrespondent/society interalia mentioning that the petitioner wasappointed as an Office Assistant on 15.2.2002 and his appointmentwas made without consulting the Employment Exchange which was inviolation of the direction issued by the Registrar (Housing), Madrasunder Section 181 and also contrary to Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore, the petitioner wasimmediately to be terminated from service.4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the firstrespondent had passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 withoutconducting an enquiry and without providing an opportunity to thepetitioner for hearing him and therefore, there is a negation of thePrinciples of Natural Justice and moreover, the petitioner wasappointed by the second respondent/society by following due procedureand in fact the Employment Exchange sponsored names to the secondrespondent and the second respondent/society was perforced on29.04.2002 and in the interview, the petitioner was selected andtherefore, there was no illegality as such the impugned communicationdated 12.12.2002 was an illegal one in the eye of law and as such thesame was clearly unsustainable.5.That apart, the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 issued by thefirst respondent to the second respondent/society was not addressedto the petitioner and therefore he prays for allowing the writpetition by this Court in quashing the impugned order dated12.12.2002 passed by the first respondent.6.Per contra, the stand of the respondent is to the effect thatthe petitioner was appointed on 29.04.2001 and and as transpires fromthe records, the erstwhile management had not sought permission fromthe Registrar (Housing) for appointment of Office Assistant and therequisition for a list of candidates for interview was sent directlyto the Employment Exchange by the erstwhile management and as per therules any appointment can be made only with the prior concurrence ofthe Registrar and it is the Registrar who directed the Employment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Exchange to send a list of eligible candidates and the petitioner wasappointed as an Office Assistant as per the Resolution No.4 dated20.10.2000 and on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- p.m and that thesecond respondent as its own accord called for a list from theEmployment Exchange and the petitioner was working on a daily wagebasis and it is not correct to state that the petitioner joined dutyon 29.4.2001 and he was working on consolidated pay from 20.10.2000and even before the action could be initiated by the secondrespondent/society against the petitioner, the petitioner hadapproached this Court which is admittedly a premature one and as amatter of fact he had no cause of action to file the present writpetition and further, the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 was aninternal communication between the first respondent and the secondrespondent society and looking at from any angle the writ petitionhas to be dismissed in limine and the petitioner for the present hasno Locus to project this writ petition before this Court.7.On a careful consideration of respective contentions it isclear that though the petitioner claimed that he was appointed on29.04.2001 by the second respondent/society as per its proceedings,the same was repudiated by the respondents by pointing out that thepetitioner was appointed as per Board's Resolution dated 5.6.2002 andbefore that, he was working on consolidated pay from 20.10.2000 andreally speaking, the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistantas per Resolution No.4 dated 20.10.2000 on consolidated pay ofRs.500/- and suffice it for this Court to point out that there is adivergent view between the parties in regard to the date ofappointment. The candid fact is that as on date, the petitioner is inservice and continues to perform his duty as an Office Assistant andwithout any interruption or any termination order being issued to himby the second respondent/society. At this stage, it is quitepertinent to make a mention that the petitioner has approached thisCourt by filing the present writ petition to quash the impugned orderdated 12.12.2002 issued by the first respondent and this Court inW.P.M.P.No.11169 of 2003 granted interim stay and ordered notice on20.3.2003 and the same was made absolute on 27.8.2003 and on thestrength of the interim stay having been made absolute, thepetitioner is continuing in service as an Office Assistant in thesecond respondent/society.8.This Court aptly points out that in STATE OF ORISSA VS.BINAPANI DEVI, AIR 1967 SC at page 1269, the Hon'ble Supreme Courthas held that 'even in case of administrative orders invoking civilconsequences, the rules of Natural Justice must be followed'. Alsoin S.L.KAPOOR VS. JAGMOHAN, AIR 1981 SC at page 136, the Hon'bleSupreme Court has opined that 'the non observance of Natural Justiceis itself a prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independentlyof proof of denial of Natural Justice is unnecessary'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.A close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 issuedby the first respondent and addressed to the secondrespondent/society clearly indicates to the mind of this Court thatthe petitioner for the present has no cause of action to approachthis Court on the strength of the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 andtherefore by any stretch of imagination a direction cannot be giventreating him as an aggrieved person since the impugned proceedingdated 12.12.2002 was only an internal communication for terminatingthe services of the petitioner and it is also brought to the noticeof this Court by either side that pursuant to the impugned orderdated 12.12.2002, no further action was initiated by the secondrespondent against the petitioner and therefore taking account of theconspectus of the over all assessment of the facts and circumstancesof the case which floats on the surface, this Court comes to theconclusion that the present writ petition filed by the writpetitioner is a otiose one and viewed in that perspective, the writpetition fails. 10.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as a prematureone leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clearthat if the second respondent/society is to take any further actionas per the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 against the petitioner,then in that event, the authorities concerned including the secondrespondent/society are to follow the Principles of Natural Justice byproviding due opportunity to the petitioner to explain his stand. Itis for the second respondent/society or for the authorities concernedto act according to their conscience within the parameteres of law bystrictly adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarclaToThe Deputy Registrar (Housing),Vellore Region,Vellore.1 cc To Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, SR.99881 cc To Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, Advocate, SR.9724W.P.No.8713 of 2003TEJ(CO)sra 24.02.2010