The main legal point established is that an individual's acceptance of a relaxation in a previous promotion can preclude them from contesting the denial of promotion based on similar eligibility criteria in a subsequent promotion request.

R. Banumathi, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is the order in W.P.No.21947 of 2009 (18.10.2011) declining to quash the impugned Proceedings in Ref.No.A2/69295/08 dt. 03.9.2009 and also declining to issue direction to the Respondents for inclusion of Appellant's name in the panel of Rangers fit for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests by recruitment by transfer for the year 1998-99 and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. Facts leading to filing of Writ Petition are as follows:-

Appellant is a graduate in Science and was appointed as Forest Ranger through a selection conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1980-81 and was appointed as Forest Ranger in the Forest Department on 01.11.1980. Appellant was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest in the panel year 2000-2001. Case of Appellant is that names of directly recruited Forest Rangers of the year 1980 for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests was taken up for consideration for the year 1998-99. The crucial date for preparation of panel for the year 1998-99 was 15.8.1997, but the panel was published on 12.12.2001, in G.O.Ms.No.194 Environmental & Forest (FR.1) Department dated 12.12.2001. In the said G.O., the 2nd Respondent has considered promotion of as many as 17 Rangers as Assistant Conservator of Forests; whereas the name of Appellant was not included in the said panel. But his juniors have been considered and their names have been included in the panel and they were promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests.

3. Appellant submitted a representation dt. 12.12.2008 to the 1st Respondent claiming promotion to include his name in the panel of the year 1998-99. As there was no response, Appellant has filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.14095 of 2009 seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to pass orders on his representation dt. 12.12.2008. Even in the admission stage, by the order dated 27.3.2009 the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction, directing the Respondents to consider Appellant's representation dated 12.12.2008 and pass orders on merit in accordance with law. In furtherance of the direction in W.P.No.14095 of 2009, 1st Respondent issued the impugned Proceedings in Ref.No.A2/69295/08 dt. 3.9.2009 rejecting the claim of the Appellant for inclusion of his name in the panel of Rangers fit for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests for the year 1998-99 on the ground that Appellant has not completed discipline of service in Corporation as well as in Non Sensitive posts as prescribed in Rule 4(3) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Forest Service and also the Appellant had currency of punishment imposed by the Managing Director, TAFCORN, Trichy in Proceedings No.3039/95/E2 dt. 19.11.1997 which lies within the check period for the preparation of panel for the year 1998-99 and Appellant's claim has been denied. Challenging the said Proceedings dt. 3.9.2009, Appellant has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.21947 of 2009. Along with W.P.No.21947 of 2009, Appellant has also filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.21946 of 2009 challenging the punishment imposed on him vide Proceedings No.3039/97/E2 dt. 19.11.1997 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

4. Respondents resisted the Writ Petition contending that the Departmental Committee had not recommended Appellant's name for inclusion in the panel for the year 1998-99, approved in G.O.Ms.No.194 dt. 12.12.2001, since Appellant had not completed the service in Corporation/discipline of service in Non Sensitive posts on the crucial date of the panel for the year 1998-99. That apart at the time of consideration, the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed in Proceedings dt. 19.11.1997 by the Managing Director, TAFCORN, Trichy was held against the Appellant. The said occurrence of lapse with regard to this punishment was for the year 1994-95 which was well within the check period for the panel year 1998-