IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 16.02.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM and The Honourable Mr. Justice T. RAJA W.P. No.2546 of 2010 1. Dr. Ambedkar Audit Employees Welfare Association, rep. by its Secretary, Mr. K. Thiruvetri Ayyanar, Office of the Principal Accountant General, (Civil audit) Accountant General (C&RA), No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018. 2. M. Palanivelu ... Petitioners ..Vs.. 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai – 600 104. 2. Union of India, rep. by Controller and Auditor General of India, No.10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 3. The Principal Accountant of General (Civil Audit), Lekha Pariksha Bhavan, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order dated 27.10.2009 passed in O.A. No.287 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same and direct respondents 2 and 3 to grant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion to the members of the first petitioner Association including the second petitioner to the post of Audit Officers, with effect from the year 2007 when the vacancies arose, with all the other attendant benefits retrospectively from the date of their promotion within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Subbiah O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Aggrieved over the dismissal of O.A. No.287 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, this writ petition has been brought forth by the petitioners, seeking for the following relief:- " to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order dated 27.10.2009 passed in O.A. No.287 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same and direct respondents 2 and 3 to grant promotion to the members of the first petitioner Association including the second petitioner to the post of Audit Officers, with effect from the year 2007 when the vacancies arose, with all the other attendant benefits retrospectively from the date of their promotion within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court." 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also looked into the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioners as could be seen from the averments made in the affidavit and also the submissions made by the learned counsel is that one K. Mottiayandi and the second petitioner Palanivelu, who belong to S.C. category, have joined duty as AAO in the year 1981 and 1982 respectively. Their next promotional avenue was to the post of AO in Group 'B'. Two individuals viz. one Rathnam and Murugiah were promoted as Assistant Accountant General in July, 2007. Further, in February and June, 2007 another two persons have retired. The said vacancies were filled up by promoting the persons belonging to UR category. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Five posts were earmarked for SC/ST for the year 2007. The respondents have not followed the roster properly and have filled up all the five posts during the year 2005 from among the UR category. Thus, the second petitioner and the other individual should have been promoted in the year 2007 itself, but they were promoted as AO in the year 2008 only. Under such circumstances, they filed O.A. No.287 of 2008, contending that their promotion should be given effect from the year 2007. 5. When the said application was taken up by the Tribunal, opportunity was given to the respondents therein. On enquiry, the Tribunal took the view that the petitioners had no case and dismissed the said application. Hence this writ petition has been brought forth by the petitioners. 6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel would submit that admittedly, two persons have retired in the year 2007 and those vacancies should have been filled up by promoting the second petitioner and other individual The persons, who retired in the year 2007, belong to SC category. Hence, there arose a necessity to promote these two individuals in the said vacancies and thus, there was a deviation to follow the roaster properly. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel that once there was a vacancy available, it should have been filled up by promoting these individuals, but a discrimination was made, Under such circumstances, an order should have been passed by the Tribunal to the effect that their promotions should have been given effect from the year 2007, but not done so. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and looking into the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not require any disturbance in the hands of this Court. It is not in controversy that one K. Mottaiyandi and the second petitioner herein, who joined duty as AAO in 1981 and 1982 respectively, were promoted in the year 2008 only. 9. The grievance ventilated by the petitioners is that in the year 2007, there arose five vacancies. Since two individuals in the category of AO have retired and they belong to SC/ST category, the said vacancies should have been filled up by promoting the second petitioner and other individual. This contention cannot be countenanced for more reasons than one. At the time when A.O. category fell vacant, there was an effective strength of 42 and there were 6 Officers of S.C. category during the relevant time and 15% what is available to SC category was maintained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Apart from that insofar as the second petitioner and other individual are concerned, as could be seen from the available materials, they were not actually in the zone for consideration. It could also be seen that both these individuals were Assistant Audit Officers in serial Nos.54 and 56 respectively and thus, they were actually outside the normal zone of consideration. In short, if the contention has got to be accepted, they should be given promotion out of turn. Since 50% of the total strength was available to SC/ST during the relevant time, there was no need arisen for giving them promotion out of turn. 11. The order of the Tribunal is perfectly correct and does not require any disturbance in the hands of this Court. The writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssa. To 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai – 600 104. 2. The Controller and Auditor General of India, The Union of India, No.10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 3. The Principal Accountant of General (Civil Audit), Lekha Pariksha Bhavan, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018. +1cc to Mr.S.Subbiah, Advocate Sr 10824 KSJ(CO) km/25.2. W.P. No.2546 of 2010 and connected M.P. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/