IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 19-09-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4302 of 2001 M.Murugavel .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Salem. 2.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai-600 009. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records leading to the issue of proceedings C3/5773/98, dated 26.2.2001, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and forbear the first respondent from changing or altering the status or position of the petitioner as skilled Assistant Grade-I in the Salem Municipal Corporation. For Petitioner : Mr.Karthik Rajan For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader for R2 Mr.G.Sankaran for R1 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had stated that he is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and has completed the course in the year 1986. He belongs to a Most Backward Community. He was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Work Inspector in the Salem Municipality, in the year 1991, which was later upgraded as a Corporation in the year 1994. The petitioner was appointed as a work Inspector, on 10.1.91. The basic qualification for being appointed in the said post is a Diploma in Civil Engineering. Later, the petitioner was ousted from the post of the Work Inspector, on 24.8.92. The petitioner had filed an application before the Tamilnadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5743 of 1992. By an order, dated 8.6.94, the Tribunal had directed the appointment of the petitioner as a work inspector in the Salem Municipality, either in the existing vacancy or in the future vacancies. Based on the directions issued by the Tribunal, the second respondent had issued an order, in G.O.Ms.No.107, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 25.3.96 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Work Inspector. Accordingly, the first respondent had appointed the petitioner in the existing vacancy of Work Inspector, on 31.7.97, and as such the petitioner has been continuing in service till the date of the filing of the writ petition. 3. According to the service rules approved and published in G.O.Ms.No.237, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.9.96, which had come into existence on 1.10.96, the post of Work Inspector had been grouped with identical posts, and re- designated as Skilled Assistant Grade-I in the scale of pay of Rs.3625-4900, as against the previous pay scale of Rs.1100-25-1150- 30-1660. The petitioner's probation in the said post had been satisfactorily completed and the first respondent in his proceedings No.K10/4646/2000, dated 3.10.2000, had declared the completion of the probation by the petitioner. The first respondent had also sanctioned the periodical annual increments to the petitioner till the year 2000. The first respondent had also fixed the seniority of the petitioner in the category of Skilled Assistant Grade-I, in his proceedings No.C3/2857/99, dated 7.7.99. It has been further stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings No.C3/5773/98, dated 26.2.2001, reverting the petitioner as Skilled Assistant Grade-II. The impugned proceedings of the first respondent is arbirary, contrary to the rules applicable to the petitioner's service, illegal and void. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 26.2.2001, is liable to be set aside. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that as per the service rules, the post of Works Inspector cannot be grouped as Skilled Assistant Grade- I as the petitioner should be absorbed in the entry level post as Skilled Assistant Grade-II. The petitioner had joined in the service of the first respondent Corporation only on 31.7.97, after the publication of the Service Rules. The petitioner had completed his probation period of two years on 3.10.2000. The petitioner's increments were sanctioned in accordance with the Service Rules. The proceedings No.C3/2857/99, dated 7.7.99, had been issued by oversight, without going through the relevant Service Rules. Therefore, the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 26.2.2001, in proceedings NO.C3/5773/98, is in accordance with the Service Rules of the Corporation. 5. It has been further stated that the order of the first respondent, dated 26.2.2001, is correct and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not reverted to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a lower post. Only his seniority has been re-arranged as per the Service Rules. The proceedings issued is only in respect of revision of seniority after considering the provisions of law and the Service Rules of the newly formed Corporation. Further, the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 26.2.2001, had been issued only after a careful study of the Service Rules of the first respondent Corporation issued in G.O.Ms.No.237, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.9.96. The petitioner had been appointed as a Work Inspector before the said rules had been issued on 26.9.96 and the question of promoting the petitioner, who is a Work Inspector, as Skilled Assistant Grade-I, would not arise. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the said order has been passed. The impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 26.2.2001, is arbirary and it is contrary to Articles, 14, 19, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. It is ultravires the provisions of the Tamilnadu Municipal Corporation Service rules, 1996, issued in G.O(Ms)No.237, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.9.96. The first respondent had failed to note that the petitioner had been appointed as a Work Inspector, through the Employment Exchange, in accordance with the directions issued by the second respondent in G.O.(D).No.107, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 25.3.96 and based on the qualification of the petitioner as he was possessing a Diploma in Civil Engineering. The post of Work Inspector, in which the petitioner had been appointed, was subsequently, re-designated as Skilled Assistant Grade-I. The first respondent had failed to note that the petitioner has completed his period of probation, satisfactorily, in the category of Skilled Assistant Grade-I and the first respondent had issued orders recognishing his completion of probation in his proceedings, dated 3.10.2000. The Annual increments for the years 1999 and 2000 had also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Further, the seniority of the petitioner in the post of Skilled Assistant Grade-I, had been fixed and it was published by the first respondent in his proceedings, dated 7.7.99. The fixation of the seniority of the petitioner cannot be altered without prior notice to the petitioner. Once the petitioner had been regularly appointed by direct recruitment through the Employment Exchange as a Work Inspector which has been re-designated as Skilled Assistant Grade-I, the petitioner cannot be down graded to a post lower in level to the one in which he had been initially appointed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further stated that the petitioner having been appointed, initially, as a Work Inspector and later re-designated as a Skilled Assistant Grade-I, in accordance with the Service Rules applicable to the first respondent Corporation, he cannot be reverted to the post of Skilled Assistant Grade-II. Further, an order reverting the petitioner to the post of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Skilled Assistant Grade-II from the post of Skilled Assistant Grade- I, cannot be done without prior notice being issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 26.2.2001, is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and illegal in the eye of law. 8. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Corporation had submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, on 26.2.2001, is in accordance with the Service Rules applicable to the petitioner. Since the petitioner had been wrongly appointed as a skilled Assistant Grade-I bye-passing the post of Skilled Assistant Grade-II, he was re-designated as Skilled Assistant Grade-II. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records placed before this Court, it is seen that the petitioner had been initially appointed in the post of Work Inspector in the Salem Municipality, on 10.1.91, after having been sponsored from the Employment Exchange. The basic qualification required for being appointed as a Work Inspector is a Diploma in Civil Engineering, which the petitioner had possessed. When the Salem Municipality had been upgraded as a Municipal Corporation and the Service Rules approved and published in G.O.Ms.No.237, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.9.96, had become applicable, the post of Work Inspector was grouped with identical posts and re-designated as Skilled Assistant Grade-I, in the scale of pay of Rs.3625-4900. After the re-designation of the post of Work Inspector, as a Skilled Assistant Grade-I, the petitioner had been paid the revised scales of pay of Rs.3625-4900/-. 10. The contention of the first respondent that the petitioner had been wrongly appointed as a Skilled Assistant Grade-I, instead of being appointed as a Skilled Assistant Grade-II, is not acceptable, in view of the Tamilnadu Municipal Corporations Engineering and Water Supply Subordinate service Rules, 1996. From Rule-3 of the said Rules, it is clear that an appointment to the post of Skilled Assistant Grade-I can be made both by direct recruitment, as well as by promotion from the holder of the post of Skilled Assistant Grade- II. It is not correct to say that a person can be appointed as a Skilled Assistant Grade-I only after he had been a Skilled Assistant Grade-II. Since the petitioner had been working as a Work Inspector in the Salem Municipality, which was later upgraded as a Municipal Corporation, the posts of electrician, fitter, metre reader, Work Inspector, Mechanic etc., had been re-designated as Skilled Assistant Grade-I, as seen from the Annexure-II to G.O.Ms.No.237, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.9.96. If that be so, the contention of the first respondent that the petitioner is not eligible to be redesignated as Skilled Assistant Grade-I, cannot be countenanced. The appointment of the petitioner as a Skilled https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Assistant Grade-I could either be by direct recruitment as provided under the Tamilnadu Municipal Corporations Engineering and Water Supply Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, or through re-designation from the post of Work Inspector to that of Skilled Assistant Grade-I, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.237, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.9.96. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not been issued with a prior notice before the impugned order of reversion had been passed. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that sufficient reasons have been shown by the petitioner to set aside the impugned order, dated 26.2.2001, passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh To 1.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Salem. 2.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai-600 009. + 1 CC To Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate SR NO.53923 Writ Petition No.4302 of 2001 NSM {CO} TP/17.10.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/