Employee Cannot Be Penalised For Appointing Authority's Failure To Follow Communal Rotation Guidelines: Madras High Court

Justice RN Manjula held that the employee had not suppressed any material facts and he could not be penalized or made a scapegoat for the appointing authority's failure to follow the guidelines of communal rotation. Noting that the appointment was cancelled after 14 years, the court added that the Government was a model employer and could not adopt such atrocious practices.

“For the error on the part of the Appointing Authority in not following the guidelines of communal rotation, the petitioner cannot be penalised or made as a scapegoat. The Government, being the model employer, cannot adopt such atrocious practices of cancelling the appointment of a person after fourteen long years for the fault of its own officer involved in the recruitment,” the court said.

The court added that the Government was vicariously liable for compensating the loss caused to anyone due to its own mistake, and thus the employee was entitled to stake a claim for monetary benefits as compensation for his loss of service due to the mistake of the Government.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Sasikumar who was appointed as a Jeep Driver through Employment exchange in the Krishnarayapuram Panchayat Union. After 14 years of service, Sasikumar was served with an order cancelling his appointment after it was noted that he was wrongly appointed in the place reserved for the Scheduled Castes (Arunthathiyars on a Preferential Basis) and the same was against the Government Order issued with regard to communal rotation. Sasikumar had challenged this order.

The respondent authorities submitted that Sasikumar's appointment was a temporary one and the mistakes came to light after the audit objection following which the officer in charge of the appointment had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. It was submitted that the appointment was made in violation of the Rules of communal rotation and thus the order cancelling the appointment was rightly issued.

The court noted that since Sasikumar's appointment was not against a regular vacancy, there was no necessity to follow the communal reservation in such an appointment. The court further added that the authority could not, on its own cancel the appointment after 14 years of service.

Noting that Sasikumar's services were terminated for no fault of his own, the court thought it ideal for the state to continue engaging his service instead of bearing the liability of compensating him for the loss caused to him.

The court thus set aside the order cancelling the appointment and directed the authorities to reinstate Sasikumar and treat his period of absence as continuity of service with all other attendant and monetary benefits including back wages. The court added that if the authorities opined that the post given to Sasikumar would not be available for the rightful category, a rectification order or an order creating a super-numerical post could be issued considering it as a special case.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. H. Mohammed Imran, for M/s. Ajmal Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader, Mr. G.Suriya Ananth, Additional Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 251

Case Title: R Sasikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: W.P.(MD)No.12602 of 2024