Judgment:
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2015 dated 22.09.2015.)
S. Manikumar, J.
1. Challenge in this writ appeal, is to an order, made in W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2015, dated 22.09.2015, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court, has sustained the order, in Na.Ka.No.321/E/14, dated 03.09.2015, passed by the 4th respondent/Principal, Government Arts College, Melur, Madurai District.
2. Brief facts, as deduced from the material on record, and the impugned order, are that the appellant was appointed as a Programmer, in the cadre of Lab Assistant, on 15.07.1996, by the 4th respondent. Pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission report, the post of Programmer, in the cadre of Lab Assistant, was re-designated as Assistant Programmer and the pay scale was fixed as Rs. 9300-34800+4200, vide order, dated 27.10.2010. Grade pay was later on, revised as Rs.4,400/- from Rs.4,200/-. In 1996, the appellant was given the selection grade, in the post of Assistant Programmer.
3. When the matter stood thus, it is the case of the appellant that the 4th respondent/Principal, Government Arts College, Melur, Madurai District, passed an order in Na.Ka.No.321/E/14 dated 03.09.2015, stating that the appellant/petitioner, has been relieved, from the post of Assistant Programmer and posted as Junior Assistant, in the place of Ganesamoorthy, who was given promotion to the post of Assistant. According to the appellant/petitioner, Assistant Programmer, is a B-Grade post, with pay scale of 9300-34800+4400. Whereas, Junior Assistant, is a C-Grade post, with pay scale of 5200-20200+2400.
4. Contending inter alia that posting the appellant/petitioner as Junior Assistant, would amount to reversion, without there being any opportunity of hearing, the appellant/petitioner, has filed W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2015, for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records, pertaining to the impugned order, in Na.Ka.No.321/E/14, dated 03.09.2015, on the file of the respondent No.4, and quash the same.
5. The order in Na.Ka.No.321/E/14, dated 03.09.2015, passed by the 4th respondent, reads as follows:-
6. Adverting to the averments, seeking to quash the order, dated 03.09.2015, which according to the appellant is reversion, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following order:-
''But this Court is not able to see any merits in the Writ Petition for the simple reason that mere reading of the impugned order shows that one Mr.Ganesamoorthy, who was working in the post of Junior Assistant, has been given promotion to the post of Assistant and posted in the 3rd respondent Office. In view of the vacancy created by promotion given to the said Ganesamoorthy, the impugned order has been passed by the Principal, Government Arts College, Melur, Madurai, the 4th respondent herein by way of working arrangement for a period till the said post is filled by him, the petitioner has been asked to discharge the duties assigned to the Junior Assistant. Secondly, in the case of the petitioner, he has been asked to discharge the duty by way of staff gap arrangement as a Junior Assistant, whereas in the case of Mr.Vijayaraghavan, a direction has been given to him to complete his work first and thereafter, to go and assist the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner cannot come to this Court complaining that he alone has been discriminated by way of a temporary working arrangement. The reason in the impugned order shows clearly that till such time the post of Junior Assistant that has occurred on account of promotion given to the said Ganesamoorthy is filled up, both the petitioner and Mr.Vijayaraghavan are directed to take care of the work equally and temporarily. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The second contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been fully relieved is also not appealed to this Court for the reason that the said Mr.Vijayaraghavan was directed to discharge his duties in the post of Junior Assistant and after completing his work only, he has been directed to assist the petitioner and the petitioner is given lighter work to do only the work of Junior Assistant, therefore, when the said Mr.Vijayaraghavan has not come to this Court and accepted the temporary working arrangement, the petitioner cannot come to this Court because there is no merit. Similarly, as the impugned order is self-speaking one that this arrangement is purely temporary for such time till the vacancy is filled in, the contention that the petitioner is reverted is far from acceptance. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.''
7. Assailing the correctness of the order, made in W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2015 dated 22.09.2015, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterated the very same grounds. On 29.01.2015, when the matter came up for admission, this Court passed the following order:-
''Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
As per order dated 03.09.2015, the appellant was posted to the place of one Ganesamoorthy, working as Assistant, but, who went on promotion. The arrangement was supposed to be temporary till filling up of the vacancy. The appellant claims that two Assistants have already been appointed.
Learned Special Government Pleader is directed to verify and report to this Court.
Post on 12.02.2016.''
8. On the basis of the instructions, dated 12.02.2016, from the 4th respondent/Principal, Government Arts College, Melur, Madurai District, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that when Ganesamoorthy was promoted as Assistant, on transfer, until the post of Junior Assistant, was filled up, on permanent basis, the appellant/writ petitioner was only directed to discharge the duties of certain sections, looked after by Mr.Ganesamoorthy. One Mr.Vijayaraghavan was also directed to render assistance, to the appellant/petitioner. The details of the work, directed to be performed, by the appellant/petitioner, consequent to promotion and transfer of Mr.Ganesamoorthy, are as follows:-
9. In this context, learned Special Government Pleader also referred to the impugned proceedings, dated 03.09.2015. He further submitted that though the appellant/writ petitioner, had claimed that he was downgraded to the post of Junior Assistant and thus, there was a reversion, without providing an opportunity, on facts, he was not relieved from the post of Lab Assistant. He also submitted that in the two vacant posts of Junior Assistant, one Mr.P.Rampraveen has been appointed on 02.12.2015. According to him, the appellant/petitioner was given only some additional work, consequent to promotion of Mr.Ganesamoorthy, as Assistant. For the abovesaid reasons, he submitted that there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order made in W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2015 dated 22.09.2015, warranting interference.
10. The instructions of the Principal (in-charge), Government Arts College, Melur, Madurai District, addressed to the learned Special Government Pleader is extracted hereunder
11.Reading of the impugned proceedings, dated 03.09.2015, and the further instructions, dated 12.02.2016, of the Principal (in-charge), Government Arts College, Melur, Madurai District, makes it abundantly clear that having regard to the nature of work, performed by Mr. Ganesamoorthy, additional duties have been directed to be performed by the appellant/petitioner, more fully, extracted supra. Further instructions dated 12.02.2016, extracted supra, also makes it clear that the appellant/writ petitioner, was not fully relieved from Computer Science Department and taken charge as Junior Assistant. He continued to remain only in the parent department namely, Computer Science Department. Added further, in one of the posts of Junior Assistant, one Mr.P. Rampraveen, has been appointed as Junior Assistant. Contention of the appellant/writ petitioner that there is a difference in pay scale and by instructing him to do additional work, his pay has been reduced to lower level, is also not substantiated.
12. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find that the appellant/petitioner has made out a strong case, for interfering with the order made in W.P(MD)No.17102 of 2015 dated 22.09.2015. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs.