AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.—The prayer in this Writ Petition is seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Second Respondent to issue
promotion order to the Petitioner to the post of Training Officer retrospectively based on seniority on par with the Junior Training Officers whose
services have been regularized during 1971 under diploma category irrespective of the date of passing diploma. The case of the Petitioner is that he
joined the Department of Employment and Training as ''Junior Training Officer'' on 10.11.1971. He passed S.S.L.C. and Diploma in
Craftsmanship in Lineman and Wireman Trade. During his service as Junior Training Officer, the Petitioner studied and passed Diploma as part
time during the year 1986. The Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Training Officer during the year 1992 and he retired in such capacity on
31.7.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. Regular Diploma holders, who joined after 1971 were promoted as Training Officers and
further, as Principal. Though the Petitioner was senior to them, he was not considered for promotion to the post of Training Officer. Promotion to
the post of Training Officer is given from the three categories, namely, (1) Diploma holder/Degree holder, (2) National Trade Certificate holder
with S.S.L.C. pass and (3) National Trade Certificate holder with E.S.L.C. pass under the ratio of 1:1:1. As the Petitioner had passed the
Diploma in the year 1986, he should have been considered for promotion along with the other Diploma holders, who joined as Junior Training
Officers after him. Though the Petitioner fully qualified to the post of Training Officer from 1988 onwards, he was not considered for promotion.
The Petitioner made several representations through proper channel and they were not considered. The Petitioner came to know that an order
made in W.P. No. 683 of 2005, dated 10.3.2006, passed by this Court, which is in his favour for claiming promotion to the post of Training
Officer. Therefore, he filed the present Writ Petition solely depending on the order passed by this Court in the above said Writ Petition, by stating
that the cause of action for filing this Writ Petition is the order passed in the above Writ Petition.
The Second Respondent filed a Counter Affidavit. It is stated therein that the claim of the Petitioner seeking for belated promotion orders to the
post of Training Officer is without any valid rule or order. The Petitioner had approached this Court nearly after eight years after retirement from
service. It is further stated that the Petitioner was appointed as Workshops Assistant on 24.1.1964 and subsequently, promoted as Crafts
Instructor (Wireman), now re-designated as Junior Training Officer on 25.3.1973. The Petitioner possessed S.S.L.C. and N.A.C. in wireman
trade. His services were regularized with effect from 10.11.1971 as per G.O.Ms. No. 49, Labour and Employment Department, dated
13.5.1998. He had subsequently acquired the Diploma in the year 1986. He was promoted as Assistant Training Officer during the year 1992.
Thereafter, he retired as Assistant Training Officer on 31.7.1998 on superannuation.
Insofar as the Petitioner''s contention with regard to three persons, namely, V. Shanmugasundaram, P. Rengasamy and M. Veerappan are
concerned, it is stated that they were appointed as Junior Training Officer and their services were regularized with effect from 8.11.1974,
27.12.1975 and 24.2.1975 respectively. They were having Diploma even at the time of their appointment itself while the Petitioner was only a
Certificate holder at the time of his appointment and therefore, he cannot compare himself with the above three persons. As per G.O.Ms. No. 49,
Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.9.1983 promotion to the post of Training Officer was given in the ratio of 1:1:1 from among the
three categories, namely, --
(1) Degree/Diploma with 12 years of combined service as Junior Training Officer and Assistant Training Officer.
(2) S.S.L.C. passed with 15 years of combined services as Junior Training Officer and Assistant Training Officer.
(3) E.S.S.L.C. passed with 20 years of combined services as Junior Training Officer and Assistant Training Officer.
It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms. No. 1357, Labour and Employment Department, dated 7.6.1980, promotion to the post of Training
Officer was given in the ratio of 1:2 following the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 2716, Labour and Employment Department, dated
01.12.1980. It is further stated that Diploma Engineering Association had represented that consideration of the part-time Diploma holders for
promotion under Diploma Quota made the position of the regular Diploma holders static and therefore, they requested that the seniority of
Assistant Training Officer for the purpose of promotion may be fixed only based on the date of acquiring part time Diploma.
By considering the said representation, the Government through Letter dated 5.10.1997 issued the orders that the part time may be considered
temporarily for the purpose of promotion to the post of Training Officer only from the date of passing of the Diploma/Degree and not the complete
service rendered by the individual. Therefore, the said order, dated 5.10.1987, is legal and proper. As the Petitioner was only certificate holder at
the time of appointment and acquired the part time Diploma during the year 1986, he did not reach his turn for promotion to the post of Training
Officer. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot compare himself with other three persons.
Insofar as the Judgment relied on by the Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 683 of 2005, dated 10.3.2006, it is stated that a Writ Appeal filed
against the said order in W.A. (MD) No. 383 of 2006, set aside the said order made in the Writ Petition through an order, dated 4.11.2006.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
The claim of the Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, is seeking a notional promotion retrospectively on par with the Junior Training Officers whose
services have been regularized during 1971. According to the Petitioner, he ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Training
Officer as early as in the year 1988 itself i.e., after completion of two years of service in the post of Assistant Training Officer. It is also admitted
by the petitioner that in spite of his representation, the same was not considered during his service period. It is further admitted by the Petitioner
that he retired from service on 31.7.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation.
Thus, it is manifestly clear that though the Petitioner claims that he was entitled to be considered as early as in the year 1988, he had not
challenged his non-promotion till his date of retirement i.e., for 10 years and even thereafter, he had not challenged the non-promotion for eight
years till he had seen an order made in W.P. (MD) No. 683 of 2005 dated 10.3.2006. It is admitted by him that the cause of action was filing in
this Writ Petition is the order made in the above said Writ Petition.
The Respondents contended that the Petitioner had approached this Court with a long delay i.e., after eight years from the date of his
retirement. Apart from that, it is also contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner was not having the requisite qualification as on the date of his
claim and when his juniors were promoted. It is also stated that as per the Government Letter, dated 5.10.1987, promotions to the post of
Training Officer was considered only from the date of passing of the Diploma/Degree and not the complete service rendered by the individual.
Admittedly, the said letter dated 5.10.1987 of the Government is not under challenge in this Writ Petition.
More over, as I have already pointed out that the Petitioner did not raise any dispute during his service period even though he claimed that he
got the qualification as early as in the year 1988. Even thereafter, when the Petitioner retired as early as in the year 1988, he had chosen to file this
present Writ Petition only in the year 2006 that too, in pursuant to an order passed in W.P. (MD) No. 683 of 2005 dated 10.3.2006.
Considering all these facts, undoubtedly, it discloses that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court on the ground of delay and
laches, even without going into the other merits of the matters. Whether the relief granted by the Court in similar cases can be taken as the cause of
action for filing a case subsequently, with delay, was considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in decision reported in the case of State of Orissa
and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, and it was categorically observed therein that a litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus
from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. The relevant paragraph at 54 of the
Judgment is extracted hereunder:
This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a Petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the Petitioner
approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for
delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had
approached the Court within a reasonable time.
By applying this decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be entertained and same is liable to be
rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches. Even otherwise, as it is stated by the Respondents in their Counter Affidavit that the very order
relied on by the Petitioner made in W.P. (MD) No. 683 of 2005, dated 10.3.2006 was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.
(MD) No. 383 of 2006, dated 4.11.2006, even on merits, the Petitioner is not entitled to succeed. Considering all these facts and circumstances,
the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected as devoid of any merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.