N.Meenakshi v. The Central Administrative
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.Nos.6282, 14568 and 14569 of 2012 and MP.Nos.1 and 1 of 2012 W.P.No.6282/2012 1.N.Meenakshi 2.R.Rajeswari 3.R.Subramanian 4.S.Gowri 5.M.Annadurai 6.K.Mathiazhagan 7.D.Rajendra Prasad 8.S.Balasubramanian 9.R.Shanmugam 10.A.Velraj 11.K.Jayakumar 12.S.Srividhya 13.P.Mahesh 14.O.Rammohan 15.S.Saroja 16.G.Sankaradass Gandhi 17.M.Anbarasan 18.R.Ramesh Babu 19.M.Rajan 20.P.Ravi 21.M.Abdul Saleem 22.R.Vijayalakshmi
...Petitioners
vs.
1.The Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Rep. by its Registrar, High Court Building, Chennai.
2.The Union Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi.
3.The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, No.14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066.
4.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, No.20, Royapettah High Road, Chennai - 600 014.
5.J.Manikandan 6.P.Prabhakaran 7.M.Sasidharan 8.M.Kaveri 9.L.Jayaraman
...Respondents
( Respondents 5 to 171 in O.As and R.As were all promoted as EO/AO earlier to the petitioners herein and no relief is claimed against them in this writ petition and hence they are given up and shown as respondents) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 29.12.2010 in O.A.Nos.514 and 1137 of 2009 and also the common order dated 26.09.2011 in R.A.Nos.9 to 12 of 2011 passed by the first respondent, quash the same. W.P.No.14568/2012 1.The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shraam Mantralaya, New Delhi.
2.The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No.14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066.
3.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, No.37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai - 600 014.
4.The Central Board of Trustees, Rep. by its Secretary, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No.14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066.
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Rep. by its Registrar, City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Compound, Chennai - 104.
2.J.Manikandan 3.P.Prabhakaran 4.M.Sasidharan 5.M.Kaveri 6.L.Jayaraman 7.M.Venkatraman 8.B.Daniel 9.G.Palanivelu 10.T.Sathyanarayan 11.S.Badrinarayanan 12.R.Rajaram 13.V.D.Swamikannu 14.K.Subramani 15.S.Sulochana 16.T.P.Bakthisaran 17.T.Ramachandran 18.D.Pandian 19.V.Ramalingam 20.N.Rajanna 21.N.Govindarajan 22.P.A.Padmavathy 23.P.K.Radhmani 24.D.Williams 25.K.A.Sampathi 26.R.Parthasarathy 27.K.Chandrasekaran-I 28.K.M.Zahiruddin 29.M.Balakrishnan 30.Md.Nasiruddin 31.S.Srinivasan 32.G.Manikamoorthy 33.A.Jayabalan 34.P.Gopalakrishnan 35.E.Sundararaj 36.T.Chidambaram 37.S.G.Sentamilselvan 38.K.Mani 39.M.A.Subramanian 40.R.D.Pal 41.R.Krishnamurthy-I 42.M.Maragathavannan 43.R.Krishnamurthy - II 44.V.K.Kumarasamy 45.K.Sanjeeviraman
46.S.Soosairaj 47.R.Santhkrishnan 48.M.Subbarayan 49.V.L.Balasubramanian 50.S.Natarajan 51.P.Kunnikannan 52.Poornam Morals 53.N.Sundaram 54.R.Sethuraman 55.M.Dost Mohamed 56.A.Kalavathy 57.K.Sampath 58.V.Raja Bather 59.J.Radhgakrishnan 60.C.K.Parthasarathy 61.K.R.Ramachandran 62.V.Dhakshinamurthy 63.R.Chandra 64.K.Kaliamurthy 65.M.Krishnan 66.G.Raghavan 67.B.A.Pugazhendhi 68.H.Babajan 69.O.Dhuruvakumar 70.A.Sheik Dawood 71.R.Krishnan 72.C.B.Meenakshi 73.M.T.K.Swamy 74.T.V.Krishann 75.S.E.Eraiyan 76.S.P.Janardanam 77.A.Dakshinamurthy 78.P.Shanmugam 79.PKGSL Santhanath 80.A.Dhanraj 81.K.P.Nachimuthu 82.S.G.Chandrasekaran 83.A.Afsal 84.K.M.Abdullah 85.G.Srinivasan-II 86.P.Visalakshi 87.R.Rajkumar 88.M.Narayansamy 89.V.Rajagopalan 90.T.N.Kalairajan 91.M.Swamidoss 92.R.Chandran 93.K.Beema Rao 94.K.Badruddin 95.U.C.Kalyanasamy 96.L.Sadagopa Ramanujam
97.V.Srinivasan -II 98.R.Chandramohan 99.C.B.Srinivasan 100.R.Krishnamurthy -III 101.K.Satyanandam 102.E.Thiagarajan 103.P.Ramasamy -II 104.AJS Kuppuraj 105.M.Sankaran I 106.T.Bathmanathan 107.C.Palanisamy 108.V.Varadarajan 109.S.R.Sekaran 110.R.Nagarajan 111.K.P.Balakrishnan 112.M.Elumalai 113.A.Janardanam 114.K.Parthasarathy 115.K.Lakshmi 116.P.Rajasekaran 117.K.Kochumadhavan 118.V.Soundararajan 119.S.Alagar 120.K.Pandurangan 121.P.Kasinathan 122.S.Rangachari 123.P.Narasimhan 124.D.Sundaram 125.K.Bhoologam 126.M.Shanmugam II 127.T.Parthasarathy 128.V.Babu 129.V.Radhakrishnan 130.N.Raju 131.S.Gopalakrishnan 132.G.Paranjothi 133.R.Logaraj 134.M.Ayyappan 135.V.Viswanathan 136.M.Muthukrishnan 137.P.Balasubramanian 138.T.Adikesavan 139.K.Viswanathan 140.G.Srinivasan 141.Syed Abdul Kaleel 142.R.Nandakumar 143.M.Shanmugam 144.P.Kathiravan 145.K.P.Choodamani 146.C.N.Mani 147.P.Ramamurthy
148.S.Chandrasekaran III 149.V.S.Sathiyavelu 150.C.Muthukrishnan 151.A.Srinivasan 152.V.Sekar 153.J.M.Nathianel 154.K.Jayachandran 155.D.Padmanabhan 156.V.Valliappan 157.G.Purushothaman 158.M.Perumal 159.S.Ramasamy 160.K.Koteeswari 161.K.S.Sooriyanathan 162.David Paneerselvam 163.D.Sethuraman 164.R.Rukmani 165.P.Vijayakumar 166.R.Saraswathi II 167.M.L.Sivakumar 168.V.M.Dhanraj 169.C.Nagarajan 170.S.Mahalakshmi 171.I.Xavier 172.R.Saraswathi I 173.M.Arumugam
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in O.A.No.514 of 2009 dated 29.12.2010 in so far as it restricts petitioners from filling up vacancies to the post of Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in RA No.11/2011 in O.A No.514 of 2009 dated 26.09.2011 and quash the same.
W.P.No.14569 of 2012 1.The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Labour, Sharam Mantralaya, New Delhi.
2.The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No.14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066. 3.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office,
No.37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai - 600 014.
... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench,Rep. by its Registrar, City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Compound, Chennai -104.
2.J.Manikandan 3.P.Prabhakaran 4.M.Sasidharan 5.M.Kaveri 6.L.Jayaraman
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in O.A.No.1137/2009 dated 29.12.2010 in so far as it restricts petitioners from filling up vacancies to the post of Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in RA No.12/2011 in O.A No.1137 of 2009 dated 26.09.2011 and quash the same.
For Petitioner in W.P.No.6282 of 2012 : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose For Petitioner in W.P.Nos.14568 and 4569 of 2012 : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For Respondents in R1 Tribunal W.P.No.6282 of 2012 :
Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for R2 and R4 Mr.M.Gnanasekar for R5 Mr.A.Fathimanathan for R9 RR 3,4,6 to 8 No Apperarance For Respondents in R1 Tribunal W.P.Nos.14568 and :Mr.M.Gnanasekar for R2 and R6 Ms.A.Nafisa Begum for R33 Mr.M.Ramamurthy for RR109, 131,144,132, 161 and 162 Mr.Karthik Mukundan for R142 Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan for R152 RR3 to 5,7 to 32,34 to 130,13 to 143,145 to 160, 163 to 173 - No Appearance For Respondents in W.P.No.14569/2012 : Mr.M.Gnanasekar for R2 and R6 R1 Tribunal RR 3 to 5-No Appearance
C O M M O N O R D E R K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original applications in O.A.Nos.514 and 1137 of 2009 filed by the respondents 5 to 9 in W.P.No.6282 of 2012, who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 6 in W.P.Nos.14568 and 14569 of 2012, to quash the order dated 23 January 2009 and decide the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method by applying the percentage to the Cadre Strength of the EO's/AAO's of the Tamilnadu region according to the quota prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Provident Fund Inspector, Grade II, which was re- designated as Enforcement Officer. The Tribunal, while dismissing the Original Applications observed that any vacancy notified after the conduct of the examination on 7 December 2009 cannot be filled up on the basis of the said examination. Similar other observations were made in paragraph 10 of the order. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners are before us.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents in the respective writ petitions.
3. The petitioners in O.A.Nos.514 and 1137 of 2009 challenged the order dated 23 January 2009 and 1 September 2009, which are in the nature of office orders conveying the approval of promotion/notional promotion to certain employees, pursuant to the recommendation made by the Review Departmental Promotional Committee. The petitioners in the Original Applications contended that the vacancies available as on 5 January 1998 would be sufficient enough for their appointments. In short, the petitioners in the original applications contended that in case, year wise vacancies from 3.3.1990 to 5.1.1998 were taken into consideration, it would be sufficient enough for giving them promotion. The Tribunal found no merit in the contentions and accordingly, the original applications were dismissed.
4. The Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the order made the following observations:- "10. While rejecting the relief, we also make it clear that the respondents can fill up only such of the vacancies which were notified prior to the conduct of the examination on 7.12.2009. Any vacancy that were notified after the conduct of the examination on 7.12.2009 cannot be filled up on the basis of that examination. Such of the vacancies which arose after the conduct of the exam on 7.12.2009 should be notified afresh and
candidates be informed about fresh date of examination."
5. The observations made by the Tribunal, which is in the nature of advice given to the department appears to be the reason for filing these writ petitions.
6. The Tribunal decided the issue raised by the petitioners in O.A.Nos.514 and 1137 of 2009. There was no need or necessity for the Tribunal to make the observations indicated above, which was beyond the scope of the original applications. There was absolutely no reason to make such observations. The Tribunal should confine to the issue raised before it. There is no question of exceeding the brief and making sweeping observations or giving directions with regard to the conduct of the examination.
7. We therefore set aside the observations made by the Tribunal in Paragraph 10 of the order dated 29 December 2010 in O.A.Nos.514 and 1137 of 2009.
8. The writ petitions are allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar TO
1. The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, High Court Building, Chennai.
2. The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shraam Mantralaya, New Delhi.
3. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No.14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066.
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, No.37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai - 600 014.
+1 CC to Mr. V. Ajou Khose, Advocate sr 6034 +2 CCS to Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate sr 6023,6024 W.P.Nos.6282, 14568 and 14569 of 2012 NM(CO) sp/9/3