The writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the respondent in No.36700/Pa.A.2/2002 dated 07.03.2003 and to direct the respondent to include the petitioner's name in the panel.
2. Heard Mr.Amalraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader.
3. The writ petitioner joined on 02.04.1982 as Junior Assistant in the Government Industrial Training Institute at Cuddalore under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules on02.04.1982. His services were regularised in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 25.06.1984 as per the provisions of G.o.ms.No.996.P & AR Department dated 22.09.1984. On 26.03.1987, in proceedings No.C2/122189/86 dated 26.03.1987 the respondent published a list of Junior Assistants /Typists/Stenotypists who are fit for promotion to the post of Assistants/Accountants/Store Keepers. In that list, the name of the petitioner finds a place at Serial No.37. According to the petitioner, he was promoted as Assistant in the year 1987. He continued to hold the post of Assistant till the year 2002-2003. In the impugned order dated 07.03.2003, which relates to panel for the post of Superintendents/office Managers, the name of the petitioner did not find a place and therefore, O.A.2266 of 2003 has been filed to include his name in the panel drawn on 07.03.2003.
4. On going through the panel for promotion to the post of Assistants drawn on 26.03.1987 in C2/122189/86, the name of the petitioner is found at serial No.37. The name of one Lalitha is found at Serial No.20 and the name of one Revathi is found at serial No.35. In the year 2002-2003, a panel for Superintendents/Office Managers was drawn as per the seniority list dated 07.03.2003. In that list, petitioner's name is not found. This panel dated 07.03.2003 is under challenge in this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name should be included along with other similarly placed persons, whose names are found in the Assistant list dated 26.03.1987 and consequently he will get the benefit. In the impugned order dated 07.03.2003, an option is given to affected person to make a representation to the Commissioner of Employment and Training.
5. Assuming that the name of the petitioner does not find a place in the list and therefore, he had no knowledge of the same, still then, the petitioner could have submitted an appeal to the Commissioner, Director of Employment setting out the reason as to why his name should be included in the panel for the year 2002-2003 on coming to know of the panel. A representation explaining his grievance should have been given to the higher authorities before ever approaching this court. No specific rule or provision of law that is violated by the respondents while preparing the panel for the year 2002-2003 excluding the petitioner's name, is mentioned. Mere non inclusion of his name in the panel cannot be a ground for the petitioner to approach this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondent, namely, the panel drawn for the year 2002-2003 for promotion to the post of Superintendent/Office Manager.
6. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the appropriate authority and if any such representation is given by the petitioner to the appropriate authority, the same may be considered on its own merits within a reasonable time,preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of such representation. The Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
PAL To The Commissioner of Employment and Training, Chennai 5