The Original Application in O.A.No.1829 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.
2. Heard the submissions made by Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 08.12.1986 on compassionate ground. He passed District Office Manual Test in November 1991. He was sent for training at Bhavanisagar from 11.04.1990 to 09.06.1990. The Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.1091, Education (PUS-I) Department, dated 21.08.1989, appointing the petitioner on regular basis as Junior Assistant with effect from 08.12.1986, i.e. from the date of his initial appointment. He completed the probation period satisfactorily. His probation was declared by an order dated 07.04.1993 by the District Educational Officer with effect from 07.12.1988, that is, on completion of two years of service. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Assistant, by the Joint Director of School Education, by an order dated 29.03.1994. It is also stated that subsequently he was also regularised in the cadre of Assistant from 29.03.1994, i.e. from the date of his promotion as Assistant.
4. While so, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.02.2001, cancelling the promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Assistant from Junior Assistant and he was reverted back to the post of Junior Assistant. The only reason given in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not sent for training at Bhavanisagar within two years.
5. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.1829 of 2001 (W.P.No.2176 of 2007) to quash the impugned order dated 22.02.2001 of the first respondent so as to enable him to continue as Assistant.
6. The Additional Government pleader made submissions based on instructions.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the service of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant was regularised, by an order dated 21.08.1989 in G.O.Ms.No.1091 Education (PUS-I) Department. It is also stated that an order was passed by the first respondent, declaring the completion of probation by an order dated 07.04.1993, with effect from 07.12.1988. He was also promoted to the higher post, namely, Assistant by an order dated 29.03.1994, and in fact, he was regularised in the post of Assistant with effect from 29.03.1994 i.e. from the date of his promotion. In the said circumstances, the first respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order, stating that the petitioner was not sent for training within two years i.e. during the period of his probation. It is submitted that when an order in G.O.Ms.No.1091 Education (PUS-I) Department dated 21.08.1989 was passed regularising the service, with effect from his initial date of appointment as Junior Assistant, and also when the first respondent passed an order dated 07.04.1993 declaring that the petitioner satisfactorily completed probation with effect from 07.12.1988 on completion of 2 years service as Junior Assistant, the first respondent cannot now pass the impugned order.
8. It is further submitted that petitioner could not be blamed for not being sent for training at Bhavanisagar, within two years, during the period of his probation. It was not in his hands. It was the concerned authorities to send the candidate/petitioner for training. If the subordinate official was not sent within the prescribed period the concerned authority should send proposal to the Government, seeking exemption for sending training at an later date. Infact, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice, the letter e/f/vz;/8108/m1/2000 ehs; /11/2000 sent by the Chief Educational Officer, Kanchepuram to the first respondent, requesting him to take proper steps for relaxation under Rule 23(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, for being sent the employee for training after 2 years in a similar case as the petitioner could not be blamed for not being sent for the training, within two years and it was only due to administrative lapse.
9. In these circumstances, the impugned order is bad and illegal and the first respondent is not justified in cancelling the promotion. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order. However the first respondent is directed to send necessary proposals to the Government to get relaxation from the Government, if any, for the petitioner being sent to the training at Bhavanisagar beyond two years period.
10. The Writ Petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
ps To
1. Secretary to Government, Department of Labour and Employment, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director, Employment and Training, Chepauk, Chennai 5