K.Ramasamy v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Kovai Division Coimbatore 43.2. The Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.7.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIWrit Petition No.8948 of 2001K.Ramasamy..Petitioner Vs.1. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Kovai Division Coimbatore 43.2. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Transport Secretary Secretariat Fort St.George, Chennai.3. K.Chellamuthu..Respondents (R3 impleaded by order dated 21.3.2006 made in WPMP No.6565 of 2006)-----Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for awrit of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the file ofthe first respondent in Ref.No.257/E3B/52F/P.A.Thu.P1.1/THA.A.Po.KA[KO.K.1]/2001 dated 01.03.2001 and quash the same and further directingthe first respondent herein to promote the petitioner as time keeper.-----For Petitioner :Mr.Balan HaridasFor Mr.K.Kalyana SundaramFor Respondent-1 :Mr.J.Om PrakashFor M/s. Rajnish PathiyilFor Respondent-2 : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, G.A.(Writs)For Respondent-3 : Not ready in notice-----O R D E RThe writ petition is filed challenging the seniority list prepared bythe first respondent for promotion to the post of Time keeper in the firstrespondent Corporation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.1. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Driver in theTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kovai Division on 24.7.1985 and hehas been performing his function as Driver without any blemish on record.At the time when he joined in service, he has qualified only with S.S.L.C.and subsequently, he has acquired Master Degree in Public Administration,Madurai Kamaraj University in the year 1996. Later, he also acquired aDiploma in Industrial Relations and Personnel Management in the year 1998and Bachelor Degree in General Law in Madurai University in the year 2000.2.2. In the year 1998, he made a representation to the firstrespondent requesting him to consider him for promotion to the next postof Time Keeper. By letter dated 6.6.1997, the first respondent informedthe petitioner that his application would be considered as and whenvacancy arises in the Administrative section. By subsequent letter dated19.12.1998, the first respondent informed the petitioner that taking intoconsideration his experience, seniority and educational qualification, hewould be considered for the next promotional post. 2.3. On 11.1.2001, the petitioner received a call letter from thefirst respondent for interview on 18.1.2001 for the post of Time Keeper.On 18.1.2001, the petitioner attended the interview along with eight otherpersons. However, he was not selected. 2.4. According to the petitioner, the selection to the post of TimeKeeper is by way of promotion, based on seniority-cum-merit. However, thethird respondent K.Sellamuthu, who was much junior to him, was selected tothe post of Time Keeper. It is the case of the petitioner that eventhough the post of Time Keeper is by promotion, it is actually by way ofseniority-cum-merit and while assessing the merit, the first respondenthad not done the same in accordance with law. He would state that whenthe petitioner is more qualified, which he acquired after joining the dutyin the first respondent Corporation, the first respondent ought to haveconsidered him for promotion. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ischallenging the impugned seniority list dated 1.3.2001. 3.1. The first respondent has filed the counter affidavit. Whileadmitting the factual position, as stated above, it is the case of thefirst respondent that on 18.1.2001, the interview was conducted for thepost of Time Keeper and the petitioner also attended the same. Eventhough the petitioner was senior to the third respondent, the SelectionCommittee did not recommend the name of the petitioner for promotionbecause there was a disciplinary case pending against him as per theCharge Memo dated 14.10.2000 for his absence from duty and another one fortrip loss. However, no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against thethird respondent and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, he was selected. 3.2. It is the further case of the first respondent that apart fromthe above charges pending against the petitioner, the petitioner'sprevious conduct as the Driver was assessed, wherein, it came to be known https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner had involved in accident on two occasions, viz. on3.7.1995 and 31.5.1997, for which, he suffered a punishment ofpostponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect by orderdated 9.12.1996 and stoppage of increment for six months, by order dated25.5.1998 respectively. Considering the above said factual position, thefirst respondent had not recommended the name of the petitioner. 3.3. According to the first respondent, the promotion to the post ofTime Keeper is given not only based on the seniority, but also onseniority-cum-merit basis and accordingly, selection has been donestrictly. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in the order impugned inthe writ petition.4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned counsel for the first respondent and the learned GovernmentAdvocate for the second respondent.5.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends thatthe seniority always play an important role, while giving promotion on thebasis of seniority-cum-merit among the similarly placed persons. If theprocess of interview is taken into consideration for deciding the merit,it will only result in nepotism and favouritism and that concept has beenheavily criticised by various courts. 5.2. In this regard, he would also rely upon the judgment of theSupreme Court rendered in Hargovind Yadav v. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors.[2006 (4) Supreme 673] wherein the Supreme Court has reiterated that eventhough interview can be held to be an assessment of performance inconnection with promotions, the same can be done only to assess theminimum necessary merit. When the procedure of interview adopted does notprovide the minimum standard for promotion, but only the minimum standardfor interview and the selection is done based on the comparative merit, itis contrary to the Rule of seniority-cum-merit. 6.1. It is true that the interview alone cannot be a basis forassessment of performance and there must be a minimum standard prescribedfor promotion and that cannot be done by way of comparative assessment.In the instant case, it is not as if the petitioner as well as the thirdrespondent were compared with regard to their performance. But, thepetitioner was denied promotion only on the ground of the assessment ofhis performance. 6.2. To substantiate the said contention, the first respondent hadstated two incidents wherein the performance of the petitioner as Driver,involving in two accidents, for which charges had been framed against himin the year 2000 and punishments had been awarded, were taken intoconsideration, while assessing the performance of the petitioner. It isonly based on such individual assessment, the petitioner was deniedpromotion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that the firstrespondent has denied promotion to the petitioner on the basis of thecomparative assessment between the petitioner and third respondent.Therefore, I am of the view that there is nothing illegal in the impugnedseniority list. 8. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in the writpetition and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same isdismissed. However, it is made clear that since the punishment period inrespect of the petitioner has already come to an end and undoubtedly, thepetitioner is a senior person working as Driver from the year 1985, it isopen to the first respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion tothe next post as and when the vacancy arises, in accordance with law.The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.Consequently, WMP No.12693 of 2001 is also dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.kplTo1. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Kovai Division Coimbatore 43.2. The Transport Secretary Secretariat Fort St.George, Chennai.+ 1 CC To Mr. M.Kalyana Sundaram, Advocate SR NO.44224+ 1 CC To M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate SR NO.44031W.P.No.8948 of 2001. vrk[co]gp/8.8.