AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi, J.—Petitioners have sought for quashing of Annexures-A to F dated 31.10.2011. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Traffic Inspectors in the year 2008 and were made to undergo training for a period of two years, whereas in the year 2003, for the very same post, the Corporation had fixed the training period for six months. After the petitioners underwent two years training, in the year 2010 also the training period was reduced to one year, As such, the training period made applicable to the petitioners being erroneous, the same should be on par with the other employees.
Sri. L. Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has filed the statement of objections, which is taken on record. He submitted that the training period was reduced to one year only to find out whether it would be workable or not. However, the Corporation has taken a decision to fix the training period to two years only and the petitioners were appointed with a specific condition that on appointment they shall be posted on training for a period of two years, to assess their suitability. However, he also submitted that the petitioners cannot have any grievance as the period of training would also be considered for the purpose of fixing the seniority.
Entry of service would be relevant for the purpose of considering seniority and other consequential benefits. Hence, the petitions are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed. In view of the same, there cannot be any grievance just because the petitioners have undergone two years training and that too, after the completion of the training period. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Corporation. I find no reason to interfere.
Accordingly, petitions are dismissed.