IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 15.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P.No.8713 of 2003 Selvakumar .. Petitioner vs 1.The Deputy Registrar (Housing), Vellore Region, Vellore. 2.B.Mallapuram Co-operative Housing society Ltd., Rep. by its President, Bommidi, Papireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents PRAYER: The writ petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order made in Na.Ka.7528/2002 Aa., dated 12.12.2002 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Doraiamy For first Respondent ... Mrs.S.Anitha, Govt. Advocate For second Respondent ... Mr.R.M.S.Palniswamy for R2 O R D E R The petitioner has filed this writ petition of certiorari in calling for the records pertaining to the order made in Na. Ka.7528/02 Aa., dated 12.12.2002 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same. 2.The petitioner registered his name before the District Employment Office, Krishnagiri in the year 1993. His qualification is Ninth Standard. His Date of Birth is 2.3.1974. The second respondent/Society had called for the list of candidates from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri in the year 2001 to fill up the post of an Office Assistant. The Employment Exchange by means of its proceedings in No.A.No.139/01 dated 06.02.2001 had furnished a list of candidates including the petitioner's name for consideration by the second respondent. Upon the receipt of the list, the second respondent on 24.04.2002 sent an interview letter to the petitioner requiring him to appear for personal interview on 29.4.2002 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner was selected for the post of Office Assistant in the second respondent/society and the society passed the resolution to appoint the petitioner as an Office Assistant and necessary orders were issued to that effect on 29.04.2002. From 29.04.2002, the petitioner is serving as an Office Assistant on a consolidated salary of Rs.500/- p.m. 3.The first respondent addressed a communication to the second respondent/society interalia mentioning that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on 15.2.2002 and his appointment was made without consulting the Employment Exchange which was in violation of the direction issued by the Registrar (Housing), Madras under Section 181 and also contrary to Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Rules and therefore, the petitioner was immediately to be terminated from service. 4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent had passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 without conducting an enquiry and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner for hearing him and therefore, there is a negation of the Principles of Natural Justice and moreover, the petitioner was appointed by the second respondent/society by following due procedure and in fact the Employment Exchange sponsored names to the second respondent and the second respondent/society was perforced on 29.04.2002 and in the interview, the petitioner was selected and therefore, there was no illegality as such the impugned communication dated 12.12.2002 was an illegal one in the eye of law and as such the same was clearly unsustainable. 5.That apart, the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 issued by the first respondent to the second respondent/society was not addressed to the petitioner and therefore he prays for allowing the writ petition by this Court in quashing the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 passed by the first respondent. 6.Per contra, the stand of the respondent is to the effect that the petitioner was appointed on 29.04.2001 and and as transpires from the records, the erstwhile management had not sought permission from the Registrar (Housing) for appointment of Office Assistant and the requisition for a list of candidates for interview was sent directly to the Employment Exchange by the erstwhile management and as per the rules any appointment can be made only with the prior concurrence of the Registrar and it is the Registrar who directed the Employment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Exchange to send a list of eligible candidates and the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant as per the Resolution No.4 dated 20.10.2000 and on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- p.m and that the second respondent as its own accord called for a list from the Employment Exchange and the petitioner was working on a daily wage basis and it is not correct to state that the petitioner joined duty on 29.4.2001 and he was working on consolidated pay from 20.10.2000 and even before the action could be initiated by the second respondent/society against the petitioner, the petitioner had approached this Court which is admittedly a premature one and as a matter of fact he had no cause of action to file the present writ petition and further, the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 was an internal communication between the first respondent and the second respondent society and looking at from any angle the writ petition has to be dismissed in limine and the petitioner for the present has no Locus to project this writ petition before this Court. 7.On a careful consideration of respective contentions it is clear that though the petitioner claimed that he was appointed on 29.04.2001 by the second respondent/society as per its proceedings, the same was repudiated by the respondents by pointing out that the petitioner was appointed as per Board's Resolution dated 5.6.2002 and before that, he was working on consolidated pay from 20.10.2000 and really speaking, the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant as per Resolution No.4 dated 20.10.2000 on consolidated pay of Rs.500/- and suffice it for this Court to point out that there is a divergent view between the parties in regard to the date of appointment. The candid fact is that as on date, the petitioner is in service and continues to perform his duty as an Office Assistant and without any interruption or any termination order being issued to him by the second respondent/society. At this stage, it is quite pertinent to make a mention that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 issued by the first respondent and this Court in W.P.M.P.No.11169 of 2003 granted interim stay and ordered notice on 20.3.2003 and the same was made absolute on 27.8.2003 and on the strength of the interim stay having been made absolute, the petitioner is continuing in service as an Office Assistant in the second respondent/society. 8.This Court aptly points out that in STATE OF ORISSA VS. BINAPANI DEVI, AIR 1967 SC at page 1269, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'even in case of administrative orders invoking civil consequences, the rules of Natural Justice must be followed'. Also in S.L.KAPOOR VS. JAGMOHAN, AIR 1981 SC at page 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that 'the non observance of Natural Justice is itself a prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of Natural Justice is unnecessary'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9.A close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 issued by the first respondent and addressed to the second respondent/society clearly indicates to the mind of this Court that the petitioner for the present has no cause of action to approach this Court on the strength of the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 and therefore by any stretch of imagination a direction cannot be given treating him as an aggrieved person since the impugned proceeding dated 12.12.2002 was only an internal communication for terminating the services of the petitioner and it is also brought to the notice of this Court by either side that pursuant to the impugned order dated 12.12.2002, no further action was initiated by the second respondent against the petitioner and therefore taking account of the conspectus of the over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case which floats on the surface, this Court comes to the conclusion that the present writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is a otiose one and viewed in that perspective, the writ petition fails. 10.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as a premature one leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that if the second respondent/society is to take any further action as per the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 against the petitioner, then in that event, the authorities concerned including the second respondent/society are to follow the Principles of Natural Justice by providing due opportunity to the petitioner to explain his stand. It is for the second respondent/society or for the authorities concerned to act according to their conscience within the parameteres of law by strictly adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cla To The Deputy Registrar (Housing), Vellore Region,Vellore. 1 cc To Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, SR.9988 1 cc To Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, Advocate, SR.9724 W.P.No.8713 of 2003 TEJ(CO) sra 24.02.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/