Commissioner Of Municipal ... vs M.C. Sheela Evanjalin

4. The services of the respondent were terminated on November 30, 1992 by the Municipal Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality. Aggrieved by the said termination order, she filed Original Application (OA) No. 622 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. However, the decision of the said application is not on record. She filed another OA No. 3517 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal 1 wherein, a direction was issued on June 25, 2002 to consider the claim of the respondent for absorption in the vacancies which may arise in future.

7. The respondent again filed Writ Petition No. 34131 of 2005 before the High Court to consider her claim for absorption as Overseer. The said writ petition was decided on December 2, 2005 with a direction to the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent within a period of eighteen weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai communicated on March 8, 2006 to the State Government with copy to the respondent that the claim of the respondent, inter alia, was not acceptable on the following reasons:

10. After securing appointment as Revenue Assistant, the respondent started another round to claim appointment to the post of Public Works Supervisor vide letter dated September 8, 2007. She reiterated such request on May 29, 2008 for appointment to the post of Public Works Supervisor. She filed Writ Petition (MD) No. 6825 of 2008, which was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration to pass final order on the recommendation of Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality within eight weeks. Her claim for appointment as Public Works Page 4 of 10 Overseer was rejected by the Director of Municipal Administration on December 30, 2008.

11. The respondent filed Writ Petition (MD) No. 5698 of 2009 which was decided on June 18, 2014 wherein, direction was issued to appoint the respondent as Town Planning Inspector. The said direction was issued by recording the following findings:

13. The respondent on the basis of the order passed by the High Court sought appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector for the reason that she has Diploma in Civil Engineering with first class on August 6, 2014. On April 27, 2017, Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, Chennai rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970 2 and that the method of appointment for the post of Town Planning Inspector is either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the post of Town Planning Assistant Draughtsman. The post of Revenue Assistant is governed by Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules, 19703. Therefore, she is not holding a feeder category post for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector, and thus not eligible for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector.

16. The fact remains that the Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality has appointed the respondent as Revenue Assistant way back in 2006. However, the greed of the respondent for further promotion or appointment to the higher post did not end. She wanted to be appointed as Town Planning Officer again on the strength of her qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering. As per the facts on record, the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970 and that Page 7 of 10 such post can be filled up either by way of promotion or by direct recruitment. The respondent is not in the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector. In the absence of her being in feeder cadre, the High Court committed illegality in directing the consideration for appointment of the respondent to the post of Town Planning Inspector. It may be noticed that Town Planning Officer Grade II is a promotional post from amongst Town Planning Inspectors, who has worked in regular capacity for a period of ten years as per the Rules.

12. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on March 22, Page 5 of 10 2017 which is the order challenged in the present appeal.

18. We find the manner in which the High Court has issued directions time and again shows utter disregard to the basic principles of law and then calling upon the officers to face contempt if the directions are not complied with. Such directions are wholly without any legal basis and, thus, cannot be sustained.

20. In view of the above, we find that the order of the High Court dated March 22, 2017 cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside with cost of Rs.20,000/- as the respondent has initiated totally untenable and frivolous proceedings. The respondent shall deposit costs with Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority within three months from the date of this judgment. The appeal is allowed.

AUGUST 22, 2019.

Page 10 of 10