W.P. No. 858 of 2008. Case: K. Pitchandi Vs 1. Government Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Secretary, Co-Operation Food And Consumer Protection Department, 2. Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, 3. Special Officer, Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Limited. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 858 of 2008 |
| Counsel | V. R. Appaswamee, E. Ranganayaki, P. Anbarasan |
| Judges | K. Chandru, J. |
| Issue | Service |
| Judgement Date | February 19, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
K. Chandru, J.
-
The petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 22.11.2007 in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12913 of 1998 dated 22.3.1999 and the letter of the Government dated 4.9.2006 as well as G.O.Ms.No.249, Cooperation Department dated 31.10.2006.
-
It is seen from the records that the petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.12913 of 1998 before this Court seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent bank to give priority to the qualified candidates who are having apprenticeship training certificate from the same establishment. This Court by an order dated 22.3.2009 allowed the Writ Petition. This Court based such claim upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. V. U.P.PARIVAHAN NIHAM SHISKUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH reported in 1995 (2) SCC 1. as well as the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5285 to 5328 of 1996 dated 3.10.1996 in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. P.Aru and others.
-
It is pursuant to these two orders of the Supreme Court, the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.142, Labour and Employment Department dated 10.11.1998. This Court held that the respondent bank must scrupulously follow the guidelines and any deviation from the judgment of the Supreme Court and the guidelines will be void and the Writ Petition was disposed of. In fact in the guideline issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.142, it is stated that when other things being equal, trained apprentice will be given preference over direct recruits and the trained apprentice need not necessarily get his name sponsored through employment exchange. With reference to maximum age, he will be given relaxation.
-
After the orders were passed by this Court, the State Government by a letter dated 4.9.2006 informed the petitioner that since the bank has not made appointment for the post of Assistant since the year 1998, question of considering the petitioner's name will not arise. The cadre strength for the bank has been fixed at 297 and the existing staff strength was 376 and there was no scope for any appointment.
-
However, the petitioner on seeing another order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.249, Cooperation Department dated 31.10.2006 in which the State Government permitted the vacancies in various Central Cooperative Banks to the extent of 250 Assistants and also out of those posts...
To continue reading
Request your trial