S.Karthikeyan v. The Union Of India,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.7.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Writ Petition No.27459 of 2015

1. S.Karthikeyan

2. G.Murali

3. S.Dinoj

4. B.Ashok

5. R.Vadivelan

6. Sreevatsan

7. C.Santhosh

8. P.Vinoth Kumar

9. P.T.Florence 10.N.Mahalakshmi 11.C.Yokesh 12.E.Prince Samuel Jebaraj 13.K.Sreedharan 14.R.Ravikumar 15.P.Maheswari 16.M.Sreedharan 17.A.Naveenkumar 18.P.Elango 19.M.Anand Krishnan 20.K.Chandrasekar 21.R.K.Sudakaran 22.N.Sasikumar 23.A.Amirthalingam 24.A.Kuppusamy 25.M.Senthil Kumar 26.P.Kumar 27.M.Mohammad Rafe 28.A.Merclin Sofia Loran 29.P.Sandeep 30.P.Poojaimani 31.S.Krishnamurthy 32.R.Samuel 33.S.Sirajudeen 34.P.Shalu ..

Petitioners Vs.

1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary Department of Defence Production New Delhi.

2. The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench.

3. The Chairman Ordnance Factories Board 10, ASK Bose Road Calcutta.

4. The General Manager Cordite Factory Aravankadu Nilgiris.

..

Respondents ----- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings in O.A.No.1067 of 2010 dated 07.8.2013 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents 3 to 4 to revise and re-fix the seniority of the petitioners along with Non-NCTVT/ITI holders concerned, with all attendant benefits. ----- For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondent-1 : Mr.N.Vijaya Baskar, ACGSC For Respondents 3 & 4 : Notice served ------

O R D E R

(Made by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J) The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings in O.A.No.1067 of 2010 dated 07.8.2013 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents 3 to 4 to revise and re-fix the seniority of the petitioners along with Non-NCTVT/ITI holders concerned, with all attendant benefits.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent.

3. The petitioners, who are National Council for Training in the Vocational Trades/Industrial Training Institute certificate holders and working in the trade of Chemical Process Workers, were originally appointed in Semi-skilled Grade and promoted to Skilled grade on completion of two years of service. Though the petitioners were placed above the juniors in the seniority list prepared in the year 2003, they were placed below the juniors in the lists prepared in 2008 and 2009, without issuing any notice to them. Hence, the petitioners made representations to the fourth respondent and the same were rejected. Challenging the said rejection orders and seeking direction to revise and refix the seniority, the petitioners filed O.A.No.1067 of 2010. The Tribunal, holding that the petitioners did not possess relevant trade certificate and were promoted only after obtaining special exemption with a specific condition that they should claim re-designation at a later stage, dismissed the application. Hence, this writ petition.

4. According to the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, the seniority has been revised only as per the amended SRO and that the petitioners though holding NCTVT certificate, but the same was not in the relevant trade, namely Attendant Operator Chemical Plant (AOCP) and therefore, their request for revising the seniority cannot be considered favourably.

5. The question whether the petitioners are qualified with NCTVT certificate in the relevant trade cannot be gone into by this Court and the same has to be dealt with only by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioners have not been given notice before revising the seniority list placing the petitioners below their juniors. Therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the Tribunal and to remit the matter to the Tribunal and accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for re-consideration of the matter afresh, with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the case, after affording opportunity to the both the parties. All the contentions are left open to be decided by the Tribunal. The writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar kpl

To

1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary Department of Defence Production New Delhi.

2. The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench.

+1cc to M/s.V.Ragavachari,Advocate sr.46458 +1cc to Mr.N.Vijaya Baskar,Advocate sr.46672 W.P.No.27459 of 2015.

ss(20/7/2017)