Act of Court Cannot Prejudice Litigants; Madras HC Sets Aside Dean Promotions, Cites 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' for Administrative Delay - 2025-07-17

Act of Court and Administrative Delays Cannot Prejudice Rights , Rules Madras High Court; Quashes Dean Promotions

CHENNAI: In a significant ruling on service law jurisprudence, the Madras High Court has quashed the promotion of 14 professors to the post of Dean of Government Medical Colleges, holding that administrative delays and acts of the court cannot be used to deny eligible candidates their rightful career progression. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh , invoking the legal maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), directed the State of Tamil Nadu to promote the aggrieved senior professors based on their original seniority.

The court set aside the government order G.O.(D) No.1044 dated October 3, 2024, and ordered the state to issue promotion orders to the petitioners within four weeks, placing them in the correct position in the 2024-2025 panel according to their Civil Medical List (CML) seniority.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case was brought by several senior professors from the specialities of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, General Surgery, and Orthopaedics. They argued that they were unfairly excluded from the 2024-2025 promotion panel for the post of Dean.

The state’s refusal was based on a single ground: the petitioners had not completed the mandatory five years of teaching experience as a Professor by the crucial date of March 15, 2024. This shortfall, however, was a direct consequence of a delay in the issuance of their promotion orders to the post of Professor back in 2019. While promotion counselling for all 33 specialities was held on the same dates in February 2019, professors in 22 specialities received their orders immediately. The petitioners' orders were delayed until May and September 2019 due to an oral direction from the Madurai Bench in a separate case and the subsequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

Arguments in Court

Petitioners' Stance: Senior Counsel Mr. G. Sankaran, Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, and Mr. K. Nishanth , representing the petitioners, argued that the delay was entirely attributable to the court and administrative processes, not any fault of the petitioners. They contended that their peers from other specialities, who attended the same counselling, were now being considered their seniors for the post of Dean. They pointed out that the government itself had initially recognized this anomaly in a letter dated June 26, 2024, which suggested rectifying the discrepancy.

State's Defence: Advocate General Mr. P.S. Raman, representing the state, argued that the rules prescribed by the National Medical Commission (NMC) were rigid and could not be relaxed. He maintained that regardless of the reason for the delay, the petitioners did not meet the five-year experience requirement as on the crucial date. He submitted that the promotions were rushed through due to administrative exigencies, as many posts of Deans were vacant.

Court's Rationale: Equity Over Procedural Hardship

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh systematically dismantled the state's arguments, focusing on the principles of equity and natural justice.

"The mind of this Court is redolent with the Latin maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit', which means that an act of court shall prejudice no one. It is now too well settled that no person should suffer for the act on the part of the Court and it cannot be put against him to his prejudice," the Court observed.

The judgment highlighted that the delay caused by the court's oral direction and the election code of conduct should not penalize the petitioners. The Court stated that the benefits accrued to candidates from other specialities must be equally extended to the petitioners.

The court also took a dim view of the government's "hasty" actions. Despite giving two months for aggrieved parties to file objections against the provisional panel, the final promotion orders were issued the very next day, rendering the appeal process "otiose."

Final Verdict and Implications

The Court concluded that the petitioners were eligible for promotion and that the denial based on a delay for which they were not responsible was unjust.

"In the light of the above discussions, this Court holds that the act of the Court and the administrative delay should not be put against the petitioners, who would have otherwise fulfilled the requirement of teaching experience... Consequently, the petitioners must be held to be eligible for promotion to the post of Dean," the judgment declared.

By setting aside the impugned promotions, the Court has reinforced a fundamental legal principle: procedural rules cannot be used as a tool to inflict substantive injustice, especially when the hardship is caused by the state or the judicial process itself. The ruling provides a significant precedent for government employees who face career setbacks due to administrative delays beyond their control.