AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This judgment will govern the above writ petitions.
In W.P.No.17305 of 1995, the petitioner union challenged the promotions made of the ""Senior conductors"" to the posts of ""Checking
Inspectors/Time Keepers"". It was the contention by this union that these promotions which were liable to be granted only on the basis of merit and
ability were practically served on the silver-tray by the Corporation to the eight respondents, they being respondents 2 to 9 merely because they
were office-bearers of various other unions. It was pointed out in the petition that under the Standing Order No.28 any promotion to the higher
post, both for technical and traffic personnel, will be by selection through a duly constituted Selection Board on the basis of merit, efficiency,
punctuality in attendance, past performance and general suitability and seniority was one of the factors and not the only factor to be taken into
consideration. It was asserted that the Corporation wanted to appease some of the union leaders due to political pressure and a novel programme
was thought of to promote the office bearers of various trade unions and reward for rendering loyal service to the Corporation. For this purpose,
the office bearers were invited from the leading trade unions functioning in the Corporation and they were asked to furnish the names of their
choice for the purposes of promoting the Senior Conductors to the post of Checking Inspectors/Time Keepers. One of the office bearers, viz.
R.K. Sukumar of the petitioner union was also invited. However, he said to have flatly refused the said suggestion. The petitioner union has given
the list of eight promotions which later on came to be made without constituting any Selection Committee and without calling anybody for the
interview. It is also pointed out that all the eight appointees were the important office bearers and they had never worked even for a day in the
entire service as they were union representatives and their only qualification was having proximate link with the ruling party and the Transport
Minister. It was on this basis that these promotions have been challenged in the petition. However, since no interim orders were granted, the said
respondents kept on working. However, in the meantime, the Corporation realised its folly and, therefore, cancelled all the promotions so made. It
is this cancellation order, which has been made a subject-matter of W.P. no.7076 of 1997 at the instance of the very respondents, i.e. respondents
2 to 9 in W.P. No.17305 of 1995. It is significant to note that in the second petition, the said respondents were not added as parties though all the
petitioner in W.P. No.7076 of 1997 were the party-respondents in W.P. No.17305 of 1995. It, therefore, appears that the respondents applied
to the Court for being joined as the party-respondents and had joined themselves as party-respondents in W.P. No.7076 of 1997.
It must be added that W.P. No.7076 of 1997 was, however, filed by only five petitioners and the four respondents in W.P. No.17305 of 1995
did not choose to challenge the cancellation order and instead one V. Krishnan was added as an additional petitioner. They pleaded in the writ
petition that they were fully qualified for being promoted from the post of ""Senior Conductors"" to the post of ""Checking Inspectors/Time Keepers"".
They sought to challenge the order dated 3-5-1997 by which they sought to be reverted to the earlier post of ""Senior Conductors"". Their further
case was that no opportunity was given to them before passing the ""reversion orders"" though they had continued to work in the promoted capacity
for a seizable time and had rendered meritorious service.
Mr. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.17305 of 1995 contended that in fact this petition had become
infructuous because of the subsequent order passed by the Corporation cancelling the promotions made and reverting the respondents to their
original post of ""Senior Conductors"". However, he pointed out that in W.P. No.7076 of 1997, there was a stay order granted and, therefore, the
respondents in this petition were still continuing in the promoted capacity. He pointed out that the petitioners in this petition had joined as party-
respondents in W.P. No.7076 of 1997 only to show that the action taken by the Corporation was correct. He also pointed out that there was no
counter filed by the Corporation in W.P.No.17305 of 1995 wherein direct allegations of favouritism and arbitrariness were made and it was
specifically asserted that there was no Selection Committee formed and the promotions were granted fancifully and whimsically and without
following any procedure provided as provided in the Standing Orders. He further pointed out that the respondents in this petition, meaning the
petitioners in the subsequent petition, who were also parties, do not come out with any counter though each of them was served with the notice of
the petition. The learned counsel, therefore, pointed out that W.P. No.7076 of 1997 was filed without even mentioning the fact of the earlier
petition and the four petitioners therein being parties. The learned senior counsel, therefore, urged that on this ground alone, W.P. No.7076 of
1997 was liable to be dismissed. We shall take the stock of this arguments when we consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P. No.7076 of 1997.
Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No.7076 of 1997, urged that the order dated 3-5-1997,
which is the impugned order, was passed even without considering the claims of the petitioners who were to be affected thereby. He pointed out
that that amounted to a punitive reversion and any action taken without even hearing the petitioners was null and void. Learned counsel earnestly
urges that all the petitioners who were promoted were giving excellent service to the Corporation and it was not as if they were proved to be
inefficient in any manner. He pointed out that the petitioners were selected properly as per the rules and the Standing Orders. He further pointed
that all the petitioners had the necessary qualifications - educational as well as experience - for being promoted to that post. On this basis, he
pointed out that even as the conductors, the petitioners had blemishless record of service. There is no adverse remark against them and all of them
had passed S.S.L.C., there was no enquiry pending against them excepting against one petitioner and that the promotions were granted by a
Committee consisting of General Manager (Personnel), Divisional Manager (Personnel) and Divisional Manager (Industrial Relations) after
examining the records of all the qualified conductors and selected the most eligible among them for promotion to the post of Checking Inspector.
The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation denied the claim that there was proper selection of the petitioners as baseless. In fact, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation relied on the counter-affidavit filed by one T.K. Venkataraman, son of T. Kumarasamay,
who was the Assistant Manager (Legal). He pointed out that the promotion to the post of Checking Inspectors/Time Keepers had to be from a
common seniority list of candidates belonging to the category of selection grade conductors and from among the senior conductors. He further
pointed out that the during October, 1995, the petitioners were promoted as Checking Inspectors/Time Keepers, overlooking the seniors persons
in the cadre of selection grade conductors without following the procedure laid down in the service rules.
I have seen the counter carefully. In paragraph 7 thereof, there is a clear-cut assertion that the petitioners were promoted without following the
procedures laid down in the service rules. Learned counsel pointed out that clause 25 of the common service rules provided that any selection
made or any promotion granted could be revised by the authorities against which an appeal would lie against the order of dismissal and, therefore,
the Corporation had such a power to revise the promotions which were granted without following any procedure whatsoever. In paragraphs 7 to 9
of the counter, there is clear-cut assertion made that the promotions granted were without constituting any selection committee and without
conducting interviews. During the debate also, the learned counsel pointed out that there was no Selection Committee formed as is required under
the Rules and, therefore, the whole exercise of granting the promotions to the petitioners was void ab initio. In paragraphs 12 to 16 of the counter,
the respondent Corporation has very specifically and graphically asserted that the promotions were given without constituting any selection
committee. Even as regards the claim of the petitioners, the Corporation had something other to say that all was not well with the record of all the
petitioners but, we will not go into that.
On this backdrop, the learned counsel contended that what was being done was only the rectification of the mistake and that the Corporation
proposed to follow the rules and then granted the promotions. The learned counsel, Mr. Prasad, however, said that all this could have been done
only after hearing the petitioners and giving them an opportunity of being heard. On this backdrop, it is liable to be seen that this counter was
served on the petitioners in the month of November, 2001. However, even at the time of arguments, this counter remained unanswered. There is
no rejoinder filed suggesting that there was in fact a Selection Board and that the promotion was given after following all the necessary rules.
I do not think it is possible for the petitioners to say and suggest that their promotion was proper in the wake of this brave counter on the part of
the respondent Corporation. The argument that the petitioners should have been heard would be of no consequence for the simple reason that their
promotions were per se illegal and void ab initio. There would be no question of hearing such petitioners and after all by hearing the petitioners
nothing would have been achieved because it was clear from the records of the Corporation that nothing was done and no rule was followed and
the promotion was given almost as a private largesse. In that view, I am of the clear opinion that in view of the counter filed, the promotions were
not proper and, therefore, the Corporation was justified in passing the impugned order. Even in the impugned order, the Corporation has given the
same reasons that the rules were not followed and that the promotions were given contrary to the service rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners
suggested that all this was done because of the political upheaval but, I am not concerned with that argument because there is nothing to suggest so
and no material whatsoever has been placed before me that this was because of political interference. I, therefore, desist from giving any finding on
that question.
9A. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel, however, relied on a reported judgment in Surya Narain Yadav and Others Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board
and Others, and contended that the transport corporation could not go back on its representation once a representation was made to the
petitioners in W.P. No.7076 of 1997 by way of their promotion. He pointed out that in the aforementioned judgment, the Board all through made
representations to the concerned trainee-engineers and the Board had then proposed to rescile from that representation. In my opinion, this case
will not apply at all here for the simple reason that there is no representation made here by the Corporation to the petitioners in W.P.No.7076 of
1997. They were simply promoted and they have had the benefit and enjoyment in the promoted posts. There is no representation much less on
the basis of which the petitioners or anybody has moved to his disadvantage or has been affected, as the case may be. This case, therefore, will not
apply.
9B. Lastly, Mr. Prasad argued that for last four/five years the petitioners in W.P. No.7076 of 1997 are working but, they are not paid the salaries
in the promoted posts. That is a different issue but, I am certain that the Corporation will have to pay those salaries if they have chosen to promote
them and if in the promoted capacity the petitioners in W.P. No.7076 of 1997 have actually worked.
9C. Mr. Prasad, by way of his last submission, contended that it will be now traumatic to the petitioners to be sent back to their earlier posts, i.e.
to revert them. I do not think so. In fact, it was always open for the petitioners and the persons identically circumstanced to compete for the
promoted posts. Now if the promotions are to be given, the petitioners in that petition shall have the added advantage of having worked in the
promoted post. However, the argument cannot be entertained that they should not be reverted at all. This is a natural result of W.P. No.17305 of
1995 being allowed and W.P. No.7076 of 1997 being dismissed. However, the petitioners in W.P. No.7076 of 1997 make any representation
they shall be considered sympathetically by the Corporation but in accordance with the rules.
In the result, it must be said that the Corporation was well within its rights to erase the injustice and, therefore, the impugned order passed in
W.P. No.7076 of 1997 cannot be assailed and cannot be quashed and has to be upheld. W.P. No.7076 of 1997, therefore, fails while W.P.
No.17305 of 1995 succeeds. Rule is made absolute. Connected W.M.P. Nos.27406 of 1995 and 11584 of 1997 are closed. No costs.
Before parting with the judgment, the Court earnestly hopes that those persons who were responsible for passing the reckless orders of
promotions should be dealt with properly as this grant of promotion has caused mental anguish to the petitioners 2 to 4 in W.P. No.17305 of 1995
and now the resultant reversion would cause equal mental anguish to the respondents 2 to 9 therein. It is hoped, therefore, that such things are not
repeated in future. With these words of caution, the writ petitions are disposed of as stated above.