Delay in regularising services and fulfilling service qualifications cannot be used to deny promotion, especially when the delay is attributable to the authorities.

JUDGMENT

Common Judgment:

K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.,

1.Challenge in these Intra Court Appeals is to the common order of the Writ Court made in WP Nos. 5447 and 5448 of 2017 dated 16.06.2017, in and by which, the Writ Court had allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents thereby issuing a Mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the Writ Petitions in the seniority list for promotion as Deputy Block Development Officers without insisting upon one year experience in the post of Rural Welfare Officer, Grade I and grant promotion with effect from 01.03.2016.

2. The respondents herein approached the Writ Court with a grievance that their being unable to complete one year term as Rural Welfare Officer, Grade I was not because of their fault and it was because of the delay caused by the appellants herein in regularising their services and sending them for Bhavanisagar Training. Both the respondents were appointed as Junior Assistants on compassionate grounds on 16.02.2007. However, their services were regularised only on 31.12.2012 (B.Sankar) and 18.12.2012 (K.Socrates), of course with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment viz. 16.02.2007. They were sent for Bhavanisagar Training soon after the regularisation of their services and were promoted as an Assistants on 19.07.2014 (B.Sankar) and 22.07.2014 (K. Socrates).

3. It must be stated here that the promotion was preponed to 01.03.2011 by proceedings of the District Collector dated 02.06.2016. There were further promoted as Rural Welfare Officer, Grade I on 21.12.2015 (B.Sankar) and 11.12.2015 (K.Socrates). While drawing the panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officers on 01.03.2016, the names of the respondents herein were not included in the said panel since they had not completed one year in the post of Rural Welfare Officer, Grade I. It is the grievance of the respondents that it is because of the initial delay in regularisation of their services, they were deprived of an opportunity to serve as Rural Welfare Officers from an earlier date which had consequently deprived them of the benefit of promotion as Deputy Block Development Officers.

4. The Writ Petition was resisted by the appellants contending that the qualification for promotion as Deputy Block Development Officers requires that the incumbent should have served as a Rural Welfare Officer, Grade I for at least a year. If they have not completed such service for one year as Rural Welfare Officer, Grade I, they are not entitled to promotion as Deputy Block Development officer. Before the Writ Court it was further contended that the petitioners could not be promoted as Assistants from the post of Junior Assistants since they had not under gone the Bhavanisagar Training, which is a Mandatory requirement. The Writ Court took note of several judgments of this Court and concluded that the delay in sending a person to Bhavanisagar Training should not have the effect of delaying the promotion since sending an employee to Bhavanisagar Training is not absolutely in his discretion. Similarly, the Writ Court also found that possession of service qualification cannot be equated to a qualification prescribing a pass in the Departmental Test.

5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in WA No.391 of 2012 dated 28.10.2014 in The District Collector, Thoothukudi District and another vs. S.Sasisivanandam, reported in (2012) 1 MLJ 634, the Writ Court held that a short fall in the required service for a particular period cannot be projected as a disqualification for promotion. On the above said conclusion, the Writ Court allowed the Writ Petitions as prayed for. Aggrieved, the Government is on Appeal.

6. We have heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in both the Appeals and Mr.P.Nethaji, learned Counsel assisted by Ms.A.Pramila, appearing for the responde