R.T.Udayakumar v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18-08-2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.15700 of 2015 And M.P.No.2 of 2015 1.R.T.Udayakumar 2.V.Neelambal 3.M.Elancheralathan 4.K.Pradeep 5.P.Somasundaram 6.P.Karthik 7.M.Kodeeswaran 8.V.Moorthy 9.R.S.Vijayakumar 10.D.Suvitha 11.P.Ponnuswamy 12.K.Malarvizhi 13.C.Rajalakshmi 14.T.Vijayakumar 15.M.M.Prabhu 16.A.Arulraja 17.S.Sakthivel 18.G.Venkateswaran 19.M.Kamaraj 20.A.Gopalakrishnan 21.R.Ravichandran 22.M.Mathivanan 23.T.Dhanalakshmi 24.S.Muthunarayanan 25.G.Sundaraj 26.S.Vanitha 27.M.Sugumaran 28.K.Radha 29.K.Shanthalakshmi 30.Y.Imran Sheriff 31.Arunachalam, P.
32.K.Saravanan 33.Muthuprakash
34.C.Muthukumaran 35.K.Vasanthi 36.S.Karunanithi 37.K.Valarmathi 38.K.Chinnaswamy 39.S.Ganesh Ram 40.N.Prabhakaran 41.B.Somasundari 42.R.Pandimathana 43.K.Malarvizhi 44.D.Karthiga 45.N.Arthi 46.J.Hidayathullah 47.A.Srinivasan 48.S.Dhasaradhan ..
Petitioners vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Joint Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
4.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by its Chairman, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
5.R.Subramani 6.K.Santhoshkumar 7.Kumaravel ..
Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to Letter R.No.4949/R3/2014, dated 4.3.2014 on the file of the Joint Transport Commissioner (A) i/c, Chennai-5 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to take suitable action to issue the seniority list of the petitioners by placing them ahead of the Assistants who were promoted as Assistants after 30.12.2010 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and then promote the petitioners as Superintendents with retrospective effect from the date of the promotion of their juniors as Superintendents. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Raja Ravi Varma For Respondents-1to3 : Mr.K.Dhananjayan, Special Government Pleader.
For Respondent-4 : Mr.M.Loganathan For Respondents-5to7 : Mr.Ravi Shanmugam
O R D E R
The order, issued by the Joint Transport Commissioner in proceedings dated 4.3.2014, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The order impugned dated 4.3.2014, paragraph-1, reads as follows:- "All the Officers are requested to send the proforma particulars in respect of the Assistants indicated below, for the preparation of panel of fully qualified Assistants fit for promotion to the post of
Superintendent for the year 2014-2015. The crucial date for the panel is 15.3.2014. The service particulars including a copy of record-sheets should reach this Office on or before 14.3.2014 without fail."
3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contended that the rights of the writ petitioners for promotion are affected on account of the erroneous preparation of the list.
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the contention by stating that the impugned order is nothing but a circular issued inviting particulars of the Officials for the purpose of preparation of panel.
5. Thus, no cause of action arosed for the writ petitioners to move this writ petition and a circular issued in this regard inviting particulars cannot be construed as a cause for the purpose of filing this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is premature and the writ petitioners cannot be construed as aggrieved persons in law.
6. On reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the service particulars of the eligible candidates are called for from all the Subordinate Officials, so as to prepare a panel for promotion to the Higher
post. The question considering the names of the candidates will arise only on receipt of service particulars and on considering the same, rest of the procedures are interdepartmental in nature and the same will not be a ground to move this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is premature and there is no cause for the writ petitioners to file this writ petition.
7. In this view of the matter, no further adjudication or consideration on merits is required to be undertaken in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
17-08-2017 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Svn To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Transport Commissioner, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Joint Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn 4.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
WP No.15700 of 2015 18-08-2017