The main legal point established in the judgment is that denial of promotion based on punishments awarded under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1953, was found to be illegal.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of writ of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records of the second respondent relating to R.O.C.No.A1/41125/2005 dated 17/3/2006 and to quash the same. Further, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction to direct the second respondent to include the petitioners name in the approved list of Tahsildars of the year 2005 within a specified period that may be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner has been informed by the second respondent as per his Memo No. A1/41125/2005 dated 17/3/2006 that his name has not been included in the approved list of Tahsildars for the year 2005 on the basis of two punishments awarded to him as per Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1953. The two punishments are:-

(i). Stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect as per Collectors proceedings in R.O.C.No.A2/40161/98 dated 11/1/2001.

(ii). Stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect as per Collectors R.O.C.No.A2/21431/99-1 dated 16/8/2000.

Further, the petitioner has been informed that the two punishments are within the check period of five years.

3. The petitioner has been informed that though the currency of two punishments have been completed, since his name has come up for consideration for inclusion in the approved list of Tahsildars, for the first time, his name has been passed over, as per the instructions issued by the Government in its letter No. 25165 (98-1) dated 10/6/1998 and 19/6/1998 respectively.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two executive instructions of the Government in its letter No.25165 (98-1) dated 10/6/1998 and 19/6/1998 are against the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Rules. Added further, in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules, pendency of charges as per Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1953 are punishments awarded under the aforesaid Rules are not a bar for promoting any subordinate Government Servant to a higher post.

5. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner contends that the second respondents memo in Ref.No.A1/41125/2005 dated 17/3/2006 although says that the currency of aforesaid punishments have been completed, his name cannot be included because, his name has come up for consideration for the first time.

6. It is the stand of the petitioner that a reading of the second respondents Memo No. A1/41125/2005 dated 17/3/2006 shows that he has suffered the stoppage of increment for three years and one year stoppage of increment already, he has to suffer yet for non-inclusion of his name in the approved list of Tahsildar for the year 2005.

7. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any specific provisions in the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, denying promotion to the petitioner on the ground of stoppage of increment ordered in the year 2000 – 2001 is an illegal one.

8. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is averred that, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai in his proceedings No.Ser.III (4) 63765/2005 dated 23/2/2006 has approved thirteen vacancies for the drawal of panel of Tahsildar for the year 2005 in Sivagangai District Revenue Unit and in the second respondents proceedings in Ref.No. A1/41125/2005 dated 17/3/2006, the name of the petitioner does not find place in the panel of eligible Tahsildars for the year 2005.

9. According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the petitioner has been awarded the under mentioned two punishments within five years check period on the crucial date for the panel of Tahsildars 2005 i.e., 1/7/2005.

(i). Stoppage of increments for three years without cumulative effect was ordered in Collectors R.O.C.No.A2/40161/98 dated 11/1/2001. The writ petitioner had made an appeal to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of R