D.Velmani, v. The Executive Director (Personnel),

J U D G M E N T

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 24.06.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.4328 of 2019, in and by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged circular, dated 30.09.2015 and consequently, the charge memo issued to the appellant dated 07.02.2019 and prayed for quashing the same.

¶2The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as a Sweeper on compassionate ground on 17.09.2003. His educational qualification was only sixth standard. Thereafter, he was promoted as Record Clerk. For appointment to the post of Cashier, a clarification was issued on

16.05.2009 by a circular that the panel of officiating Cashiers would include all confirmed Class III employees. On the basis of the impugned circular, the respondents included the appellant in the panel of officiating Cashier. Since the appellant did not have the requisite qualification and computer knowledge, by his letter dated 27.11.2018, the appellant requested that he be dropped from the panel. However, by an order dated

03.12.2018, the said request was refused and repeatedly thereafter, by several letters, the appellant was directed to act as officiating Cashier. Since the appellant did not obey the orders of the superiors and did not function as Cashier, a charge memorandum, dated 07.02.2019 was issued. Under these circumstances, the appellant challenged both the circular as well as the charge memorandum.

¶3The learned Single Judge of this Court found that the contention of the appellant that he did not have the qualification is not a ground for quashing the impugned circular as selection to the post of Cashier is different from officiating in the said post. Since the appellant's challenge to the circular was rejected, the consequential challenge to the charge memorandum was also rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is preferred by the appellant.

¶4Heard Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar, learned Senior Counsel representing for Mr.S.Sankarapandian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶5The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant had studied only upto sixth standard and since he did not have computer knowledge, he was unable to carry on the said functions. But though for convenience later on the appellant has taken such a stand, originally, his representation to the Branch Manager reads as follows: "jw;NghJ ehd; SC/ST eyr;rq;fj;jpy; jw;NghJ ,Ug;gjhy; Nkw;fzl; njhopw;rq;fj;jpd; J}z;Ljypd; NghpYk; eph;thfk; njhopw;rq;fj;NjhL ifNfhh;j;Jf; nfhz;L vd;id fhrhsh; gl;baypy; Nrh;j;J vdi; d fhrhsh; gzp nra;jpLkhW twG; Wj;Jfpd;wdh;. ,jwF; rhdw; hf ehd; CAB, o Thanjavuro fpisapy; 2013-y; Fk;gNfhzk;-2 fpisapypUe;J khww; yhfp jw;NghJ tiu RC Mf gzpGhpe;J nfhz;L tUfpNwd;. mg;NghjpypUe;J ,g;NghJ ,e;j fbjk; vOJk; tiu ehd; gzpGhpAk; ,e;j fpis mYtyfj;jpy; xU ehs; $l fhrhsuhf gzpGhpa vd;id njhopw;rqf; j;jpd; twG; Wj;jypd; Nghpy; eph;thfk; vd;id mDkjpj;jJ ,yi; y. jw;NghJ ehd; njhopw;rq;fj;jpypUe;J ey rqf; j;jpwF; te;jjpypUe;J vdi; d fhrhsuhf gzpGhpa eph;thfk; tw;GWj;JfpwJ. xU Fwpgg; pl;l njhopw;rq;fj;jpd; J}z;Ljypd; Nghpy; vd;di tw;GWj;JtJk;> njhlh;e;J gaKWj;JtJk; vdfF; kpFe;j kd cisr;riy Vw;gLj;jpAss; J. xU mbgg; il J}a;ik gzpahsh; gzpapypUe;J te;j vd;id mjpfhuj;ij gadg; Lj;jp nfhLik nra;Ak; jq;fs; kPJk;> J}z;Ljyha; ,Ug;gthf; s; kPJk; SC/STo td;nfhLik jLgG; rll; j;jpd; fPo; (,J mjpfhuj;ij J\;gpuNahfk; nra;Ak; mjpfhhpfSf;Fk; nghUe;Jk;) chpa mjpfhhpfsplk; Gfhh; nra;a NehpLk; vd;gij ,jd; %yk; njhptpj;Jf;nfhsf; pNwd;>"

6.oThus,oitocanobeoseenothatotheoappellantohasoallegedodiscriminationo and mala fide and had threatened to complain under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. When the employer thinks it fit that the employee is capable of performing the work and when the rules provide that the record clerks can also be in the officiating panel, merely because, the appellant was promoted as record clerk by dispensing with the requisite educational qualifications it cannot be said that the impugned circular would be bad in law. Similarly, when the appellant has accepted the promotion for the post of record clerk and is discharging duties of the said post, he cannot by way of insubordination totally refuse to perform the duties of the Cashier, which was only required of him officiating basis. If he has any difficulty, after assuming the seat, to work on day to day basis, he could have asked for the assistance or help from the superiors/co-employees and in a threatening manner, he insubordinated himself and therefore, now he is trying to take advantage of his own lack of qualification to challenge the circular and the charge memorandum.

¶7In that view of the matter, there is no illegality whatsoever in the impugned circular as well as consequential charge memorandum and therefore, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]

20.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No sji

S.S.SUNDAR, J. AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J. sji

20.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and CMP(MD)No.8490 of 2023 D.Velmani : Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Executive Director (Personnel), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Jeevan Bema Marg, Mumbai-400 021. 2.The Senior Divisional Managr, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Thanjavur. 3.The Branch Manager, CA Branch, "Jeevan Prakash" Ground Floor, Gandhiji Road, Thanjavur. : Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 24.06.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.4328 of 2019. For Appellant : Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Sankarapandian For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai