THE HONOURABLE MR v. The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kovai Division-I 37, Mettupalayam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:19.12.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALW.A.NOs.2328 and 2329 of 2001 andM.P.Nos.18106 and 18107 of 20011.M.Shanmugam2.S.Subramonian3.V.Moorthi4.N.Sivakumar5.J.Anthony cruz6.L.Eswaran7.R.Subramanian... Appellants in WA.2328/2001/ PetitionersN.Yadavakrishnan... Appellant in WA.2329/2001/ PetitionersVs.1.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kovai Division-I 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-43....ISt Respondent in both W.As.2.The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Division-1), Ooty Branch-I, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris.... 2nd Respondent in W.A.2328/013.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Division-1), Ooty Branch-I, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris.... 3rd Respondent in W.A.2328/014.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Division-I), Coonoor Branch, Coonoor, Nilgiris.... 4th Respondent in W.A.2328/01 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Division-I), Gudalur Branch, Gudalur, Nilgiris....5th Respondent in WA.2328/20016.The Superintendent, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Division-1), Ooty Branch-I, Ooty. ...2nd Respondent in WA.2329/2001Prayer in W.A.2328/2001: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of LettersPatent against the order in W.P.No.6820/2001 dated 20.09.2001.Prayer in W.A.2329/2001: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of LettersPatent against the order in W.P.No.2045/2001 dated 20.09.2001.For Appellants: Mr.D.HariparanthamanFor Respondents: Mr.R.SingaravelanCOMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.VENUGOPAL,J.)The appellants in W.A.No.2328 of 2001 pray in W.P.No.6820 of2001 for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularisetheir services in the post of Electronic Data Processing Operatorfrom the date of their initial engagement as Electronic DataOperators and continue them as Computer Operators.2.The appellant in W.A.No.2329 of 2001 prays in W.P.No.2045of 2001 for issuance of direction to the respondents to continuehim as Computer Operator in the respondent Corporation.3.Aggrieved against the common orders passed by the learnedSingle Judge in W.P.Nos.2045 and 6820 of 2001 dated 20.09.2001,the present writ appeals in W.A.Nos.2329 and 2328 of 2001 havebeen preferred by the writ appellant/appellants.4.It is the case of the appellants in W.A.No.2328 of2001/writ petitioners in W.P.No.6820 of 2001 that they are to beregularised in the service in the post of EDP Operators and thatthey have put in more than 480 days of service in a period of 24calendar months and continued deployment in the EDP wing, to dothe duties of EDP operators had created a legitimate expectationin the minds of the appellants and as such, the respondentCorporation cannot seek to transfer them to the post of Conductorsto avoid the liability to pay the salary due and payable to them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.In the counter filed by the first respondent Corporation,it is specifically stated that only due to the departmentexigencies some of the Conductors were temporarily transferred toEDP Department and the appellants/petitioners were working therefor some time and thereafter, because of the amalgamation of theTransport Corporation, these Conductors became redundant andhence, they were transferred back to work in their original placeof work as Conductors and that the appellants/petitioners have noright to force the Transport Corporation to continue them to workin another section with the Conductor designation and that theappellants do not have any right or lien to claim for the post ofComputer Operator.6.The case of the appellant in W.A.No.2329 of 2001/writpetitioner in W.P.No.2045 of 2001 is that he joined as a Conductorin the Ooty Branch-II of the respondent Corporation in 1986 andthat the first respondent by an order dated 11.09.1998posted him as Computer Operator in Ooty Branch-I and he wasworking as Computer Operator since then and the respondentCorporation gave him training in computer operations and acquiredskill in the computer operations and on the basis of training, hewas working as Computer Operator and that he was paid Rs.50/- asan allowance initially and on 23.01.2001, the second respondentasked him to go on line as a Conductor and he orally directed himto work as Conductor and there was no written orders and that adirection may be issued to the respondents to continue him asComputer Operator.7.In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is inter-alia stated that the appellant/petitioner was appointed asConductor as per appointment order No.4978/E3B/51B/CTC/1987 dated31.7.1987 by the then M/s.Cheran Transport Corporation Limited andthat he joined the Corporation on 26.9.1987 and after thebifurcation of the M/s.Cheran Transport Corporation, a new Companyin the name of M/s.Mahakavi Bharathiyar Transport CorporationLimited was formed with effect from 18.2.1994 and that theappellant/petitioner was attached with the new Corporation, havingits operational jurisdiction of Nilgiris District.8.It is the case of the respondents that theappellant/petitioner worked as Conductor till September 1998 andwhen additional computer systems were established at Ooty I & IIBranches for the purpose of receiving collection and ticket booksfrom the Conductors, during that time the Conductors who possessedknowledge in computer operation approached the Management andrequested them to work in another section without any change inemoluments and that 12 persons were permitted to work in anothersection transitorily and they were not paid any special allowanceand that the appellant who was served as a Conductor in Ooty-I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Branch, on his production of a copy of completion of coursecertificate in Diploma in Office Automation was permitted to workin another section temporarily and he was not paid any specialallowances.9.It is evident that the Government of Tamil Nadu inG.O.Ms.No.27 (Transport T1 Department) dated 27.1.1999 has orderedto amalgamate the Mahakavi Bharathiyar Transport Corporation whowas re-named as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CoimbatoreDivision-III) Limited, Udhagamandalam because of the loss incurredcontinuously etc. After the amalgamation of the DIV-III with DIV-I, the Registered Office at Udhagamandalam was closed and thesurplus Administrative staff were working in their RegisteredOffice were posted to various branches and theappellant/petitioner was directed to go on route to perform theduty as conductor along with the others. Instructions were issuedto the conductors who performed other duties either in office orin other section, to work as conductor. However, a written orderwas not issued/given in view of the fact that the appellant is aconductor who has to perform conductor duty as per designation.10.As far as the present case is concerned, theappellant/petitioner who was a conductor earlier was permitted towork in another section in view of his knowledge in computeroperation, on account of exigency of work.11.The learned Single Judge by the common order dated20.09.2001 has dismissed the writ petitions No.2045 of 2001 and6820 of 2001, inter-alia observing as follows:"4.The learned counsel for the respondentCorporation also places reliance on the decision ofthis Court dated 17.7.2001, made in Writ PetitionNo.19579 of 2000 (D.Sundaram Vs. The Managing Director,Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai andanother) wherein one Sundaram, who was initiallyappointed as Conductor and thereafter, was transferredto the post of computer Operator with Special Pay andlater on, re-posted on "Line Duty" with effect from21.11.2000, aggrieved by which, he preferred the abovewrit petition for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus,forbearing the respondents from reverting thepetitioner from the post of Data EntryOperator/Computer Operator to that of Conductor on"Line Duty" and the Learned Single Judge dismissed thewrit petition holding that there is no error orillegality in the said impugned order, which wasconfirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in WritAppeal No.1371 of 2001, by order dated 8.8.2001.5.If that be so, the order of the Division Bench of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court dated 8.8.2001, made in Writ Appeal No.1371of 2001 has become final and the same is binding on thepetitioners.6.Hence, finding no merits, both the writ petitionsare dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the injunctiongranted by this Court in W.M.P.Nos.2758 and 9742 of2001 are vacated and W.M.P.Nos.19093 and 22752 of 2001are also dismissed."12.It is pertinent to note that regularisation in the post ofElectronic Data Processing Operator/to continue a person asComputer Operator is an act which is solely within the power andprovince of authority viz., Transport Corporation. Regularisationin the post of Electronic Data Processing Operator/to continue aperson as Computer Operator cannot be said to be a method/mode ofrecruitment. We are of the opinion that to accede to such arequest would certainly introduce 'a new caption of appointment',in setting at naught the rules. Moreover, merely on the strengthof the fact that the appellant was working continuously asComputer Operator, the appellant/petitioner cannot lay a claim topermit him to continue in the said post. It cannot be lost sightof that the appellant /petitioner is still in the post ofConductor.13.While that being the position, we are of the view that theappellants/appellant Writ Appeals No.2328 and 2329 of 2001 cannotsucceed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellantsprays for permission to withdraw the Writ Appeals No.2328 and 2329of 2001 preferred by the respective appellants/appellant. Accedingto the said prayer/request of the learned counsel for theappellants, the present Writ Appeals No.2328 and 2329 of 2001 arepermitted to be withdrawn and the same are dismissed as withdrawn.14.In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall beno order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are also dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sgl https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kovai Division-I 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-43.2.The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Division-1), Ooty Branch-I, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris.3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Division-1), Ooty Branch-I, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris.4.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Division-I), Coonoor Branch, Coonoor, Nilgiris.5.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Division-I), Gudalur Branch, Gudalur, Nilgiris.6.The Superintendent, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Division-1), Ooty Branch-I, Ooty. 2 cc to Mr.R. Singaravelan, Advocate, Sr. 75137 and 75138W.A.NOs.2328 and 2329 of 2001VSV (CO)kk 2/1