AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. R.Ramanlaal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Parthiban, the learned Counsel
appearing for the first respondent.
The petitioner has stated that he is working as Assistant Works Manager/Administration under the control of the 2nd petitioner. The first
respondent had filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 1136 of 2004, for quashing the
impugned order No. 1906, dated 3.12.2004, passed by the second petitioner and for a consequential direction to the petitioners to continue the
first respondent as Examiner Skilled with all attendant benefits.
In the said original application it had been stated that the first respondent was working as an Examiner Semi-skilled on the basis of the
promotion given to her by the administration of the ordnance factory by an order, dated 1.12.2004. She had become eligible for appointment in
the year 1999 itself. However, she could not be granted promotion due to want of vacancies. In the month of October, 2004, senior employees in
unskilled as well as in Semi-skilled grades were asked to give their willingness for promotion to the post of Examiner Semi-skilled. The method of
selection was by imparting training for two weeks and thereafter, the candidates were expected to pass the trade test. The first respondent had
been sent for training along with 24 other candidates. After qualifying in the trade test the first respondent and four others were appointed by an
order, dated 28.11.2004. The first respondent had joined duty, on 1.12.2004. However, by an order, dated 3.12.2004, the promotion granted to
the first respondent had been cancelled on the basis of some objections raised by other employees of the certain trade unions. It was contended
that since the first respondent had undergone the training and had also passed the trade test the promotion granted to her should not have been
cancelled. No reasons had been disclosed in the impugned order for the cancellation of the promotion granted to the first respondent. Since the
impugned order was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, the first respondent had filed an original application challenging the
said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A. No. 1136 of 2004.
The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners who were the respondents in the original application filed before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, was that three major trade unions of the ordnance factory has met the General Manager, on 2.12.2004,
complaining that a member of the Works Committee ought to have been associated with the trade test as an observer. Since the said condition had
not been followed, the results of the trade test already held ought to be cancelled and that a re-test should be conducted. Accordingly, the orders
had been issued cancelling the promotions given to the various candidates who had participated in the training and who had passed the trade test.
The first respondent is one such candidate whose promotion had been cancelled.
After hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, had held that the
first respondent was fully eligible for appointment to the post of the Examiner Semi-Skilled and as she had been sent for training by the
administration of the ordnance factory and subjected to the trade test by a duly constituted Board and as she had passed the said test she had been
granted the promotion. The only reason for the cancellation of the promotion of the first respondent is that certain trade unions had represented that
no member from the Works Committee had attended the Trade Test Board.
A Trade Test Board had been constituted by an order, dated 22.11.2004, consisting of the Chairman and 3 members. From the extract of the
operating instructions issued by the Ordnance Factory Board, Calcutta, it was seen that the Trade Test Board had to co-opt 2 observers
nominated by the Works Committee. The instructions had also made it clear that the status of the Works Committee nominees would be only as
observers and that they would not be assigned any rule in the evaluation of the results or in the awarding of marks. They would only `observe'' the
proceedings of the trade test. It had also been seen from the reply statement that an intimation had been sent to the members of the Works
Committee, but they had not chosen to attend the trade test. Further, since the presence of `observer'' is not mandatory, it cannot be held that the
selection made based on the trade test could be invalidated. In such circumstances, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, by its
order, dated 11.2.2005, made in O.A. No. 1136 of 2004 had allowed the original application by quashing the impugned order, dated 3.12.2004.
In such circumstances, the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in its
order, dated 11.2.2005, made in O.A. No. 1136 of 2004. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. No. 23081 of 2005 is closed.