Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
J. Duraisingam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu and Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 7218 of 2015
Decided On : 19-07-2022
Promotion - District Revenue Officer - G.O. No. Rt. No. 2961 Public (Special-A) Department dated 01.08.2014 - G.O.Ms. No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993 - Article 16(4) of the Constitution - Rule 2(a)(iv) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Civil Service - Notional promotion granted with no monetary benefits
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Tahsildar, sought promotion as District Revenue Officer (DRO) after his junior was promoted. The government rejected his request citing various reasons. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's promotion was not sustainable due to various reasons. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the government to grant notional promotion to the petitioner as DRO from the date of his junior's promotion, without entitlement to monetary benefits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to promotion as DRO, the application of reservation rules, completion of probation period, and the imposition of punishment within a check period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to establish that even in merit promotions, seniority is a deciding factor. It also highlighted that reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is confined to initial appointments and cannot extend to promotion. The court further emphasized that the reasons for rejection had been relaxed in other cases and that the government had ignored previous directions from the Tribunal and Division Bench. Additionally, the court noted that the check period for punishment had been quashed by a previous judgment.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The government was directed to grant notional promotion to the petitioner as DRO from the date of his junior's promotion, without monetary benefits.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. RAMESH, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in G.O. No. Rt. No. 2961 Public (Special-A) Department dated 01.08.2014 and quash the order dated 01.08.2014 and consequently direct the first respondent to promote the petitioner as District Revenue Officer from 08.06.1996, the date on which petitioner's junior was promoted, with full monetary benefits from the said date.
1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(ii) On 23.02.1998, the TAT had allowed the petitioner's original application, by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and observed that after the promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, he should have been considered as senior to M. Govindarajan as Deputy Collector and his name should have been considered for 1995 DRO's panel also. With such an observation, the TAT had directed the State to consider the petitioner's candidature by including the name of the petitioner in the DRO's panel for the year 1995, by treating him as senior to M. Govindarajan and promote him, if found fit, as DRO from the date on which his junior was promoted. However, by an order dated 03.09.1998, the Government rejected the request of the petitioner, by placing reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993, which orders for a check period of five years on the crucial date for preparation of panel for DRO for the year 1995, during which, the employee should not have been undergone a punishment. The further reason adduced in the said order dated 03.09.1998 was that the petitioner had not completed two years of probation period in the post of Deputy Collector. The challenge to this order of rejection was dismissed on 29.06.2010. While the further intra Court appeal in W.A. No. 1884 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was pending, G.O.Ms. No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-S) Department, dated 18.10.1993 was quashed by a Full Bench of this Court on 27.04.2011 in the case of DIG of Police, Thanjavur vs. V. Rani and Others, 2011 (3) CTC 129.
(iii) In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench, the petitioner's writ appeal came to be allowed on 25.11.2013. In the said order, the Hon'ble Division Bench had directed the Department to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for promotion, after the punishment of withholding of increment for six months was over. It was further held that while passing orders as stated above, the Department shall also take note of the orders of the TAT in O.A. No. 2270 of 1997 dated 23.02.1998. In consequence to the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the present impugned order dated 01.08.2014 has been passed, rejecting the request of the petitioner for promotion as the DRO. In the impugned order, four reasons were assigned viz. that the petitioner cannot compare himself with that of his junior, who belongs t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
