Absorption Not In Consonance With Established Rules: Madras HC Confirms TASMAC Order Demoting Supervisor To Salesman

Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the petitioner could not establish any Rule for his absorption and thus was not entitled to such promotion.

The Part Time Temporary Salesman is not entitled for promotion to the post of Supervisor. Though the petitioner states that he was absorbed directly as Supervisor, he could not establish any Rule for such absorption of temporary part time employees from the post of Salesman to the post of Supervisor.

The writ petitioner submitted that he was appointed as a Salesman on contract basis in 2003 and continued till 2006. Later he made an application to absorb him as Supervisor in the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) in the existing vacancy. The petitioner submitted that initially he was appointed as a salesman as he could not mobilise a sum of Rs. 50000 as security deposit. Now, as he deposited this amount, his case was recommended

While-so, the respondent-TASMAC issued an order of reversion reverting the writ petitioner from the post of Supervisor to the post of Salesman in proceedings. The said reversion order was challenged and the High Court directed the respondent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner and take a decision on merits.

Subsequently, the TASMAC issued notice to the petitioner providing an opportunity to submit his objections/explanations with reference to the reasons stated for reversion. However the petitioner did not respond to the notice and the impugned order was passed.

The petitioner contended that the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post of Supervisor and he was appointed to the said post based on the deposit made by him. He further submitted that the order of reversion was issued without considering the eligibility of the writ petitioner and thus it was to be set aside.

The Standing Council for the TASMAC, on the other hand submitted that there was no rule to promote the Salesman to the post of Supervisor. It was submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Salesman on consolidated pay and his services were not even regularised and the petitioner was not a regular employee of the respondent-TASMAC. Thus, he could not be promoted

The court noted that even after 19 years from the constitution of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), there were no Rules framed for appointments and promotions. The court noted that the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) was a 'State', within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus all appointments were to be made under the Constitutional Scheme and by following the Rule of Reservation.

Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. In the event of appointing persons without adhering to the Constitutional Schemes, the fundamental rights of lakh and lakh of eligible youth of this Great Nation are infringed and thus the manner in which the appointments are made in the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) is to be contemned and even after a lapse of 19 years from the date of constitution of the respondent-TASMAC, curiously, the Rules are not framed for the purpose of appointments and to regulate the services of the employees working in the respondent-TASMAC, including the temporary employees. This exactly is the reason for the large scale irregularities, illegalities and corrupt activities in TASMAC.

Thus, the court directed the State to look into the appointments made in the TASMAC as at present the appointment was as per the whims and fancies of Authorities or at the instance of political persons.

The Government of Tamil Nadu has to look into these issues seriously for the purpose of regulating the appointments to various posts in the respondent-TASMAC. Contrarily, the appointments are now made at the whims and fancies of the Authorities or at the instance of the political persons. Such appointments, at no circumstances, be approved by the Constitutional Courts. Every such appointments are to be made by conducting the selection process.

The court noted that even in the absence of rules, the appointment had to be made as per the established principle which was not followed in the present case. The court also duly considered that the petitioner had failed to present his case before the respondent even after granting him an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the court deemed it fit to not interfere with the order of the Managing Director and thus dismissed the writ.

Case Title: P Mihiran v. The Managing Director (TASMAC) and others

Case No: WP No. 3359 of 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 349

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Neethidurai

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel for TASMAC