K MURUGANANDHAM Vs. DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, K.Muruganandham, by filing the present writ petition, challenges the correctness of the order passed in R.C.No.4774/2009/A3 Development dated 02.09.2002, to quash the same with a direction to the second respondent to appoint him for the post of Office Assistant in the 3rd"respondent Panchayat Union.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was originally appointed as Cholera Mazdoor on 01.04.1991 in the Panchayat Union, Mannargudi and was posted to Ullikottai." THE petitioner joined duty on 01.04.1991 and he was temporarily posted for two months." Further, he was allowed to continue by drawing a salary of Rs.2,600/- at the rate of Rs.50/- per day for the period from 01.04.1991 to 22.12.1997." Subsequently, he was terminated from service from January 1998." Challenging the said order, an Original Application in O.A.No.374 of 1998 came to be filed." THE Tribunal passed an interim order dated 19.01.1998, not to terminate him from service for a period of two weeks." Subsequently, similar O.A.No.3425 of 2002 came to be disposed of on 24.06.2002, directing the respondent to pass orders on the representation given by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of the order viz., 24.06.2002." Though there was a letter from the Standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to the Commissioner to pass orders, the second respondent / District Collector, Tiruvarur did not pass any order." THEreupon, an advocate notice was issued to the 3rd"respondent, calling upon him to implement the interim direction given in O.A.No.374 of 1998." Subsequently, on abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and the same was renumbered as W.P.No.37647 of 2006." THE said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 24.09.2007." At the time of disposal of the writ petition No.37647 of 2006, a representation appears to have been made by the petitioner's counsel to the effect that the order subsequently passed by the Collector indicates that out of 16 petitioners, 12 persons had been recommended for a relaxation of age." But in respect of four persons, the erstwhile Counsel made a representation that the Collector issued the order of appointment in Tiruvarur District." Recording the said submission, this Court passed an order and disposed of the writ petition No.37647 of 2006 dated 24.09.2007.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that it is not correct to say that the petitioner is entitled to get the appointment to the post of Office Assistant for the simple reason that the petitioner" came to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.374 of 1998.""" Though an interim order was passed on 19.01.1998, not to terminate the service of the petitioner for a period of two weeks, the petitioner failed to bring the notice of the Tribunal that the petitioner was already terminated on 13.01.1998 itself." However, when the Tribunal in O.A.No.3425 of 2002 on 24.06.2002 issued a direction to pass orders on the petitioner's representation within a period of three months from the date of the order, the petitioner was not a party in the said O.A.No.374 of 1998, which came to be transferred as W.P.No.37647 of 2006 and finally by order dated 24.09.2007 when the matter was disposed of, the erstwhile counsel of the petitioner made a statement before this Court stating that the petitioner was also appointed by the District Collector, Tiruvarur." THEreafter, had he not been appointed, he should have immediately brought to the notice by moving an application, which he has not done so." But he has gone before the Government pleader seeking an opinion and also a letter to the District Collector, Tiruvarur." Though the case of the petitioner was considered by giving a letter by the erstwhile standing counsel, who represented the matter on 24.09.2007, once again, the District Collector considered the case of the petitioner." As the order of appointment could not be considered in favour of the petitioner, yet again, the petitioner filed one more writ petition in W.P.No.15218 of 2009, and this Court by order dated 04.08.2009 again gave another direction to consider the case of the petitioner." In the light of the order passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was again considered, by impugned order dated 02.09.2009, for the reason that the petitioner has crossed the age limit and he was appointed only on temporary basis from 01.04.1991 till 13.01.1998." THErefore, his case for appointment to the post of Office Assistant cannot be considered, because his erstwhile appointment was only Cholera Mazdoor in the Panchayat Union, Mannargudi.