IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, K. KUMARESH BABU, JJ.
The Secretary to Government Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another – Appellants
Versus
K.G. Kannan & Others – Respondents
W.A.Nos.641, 642, 643 & 655 of 2017 & W.P.Nos.17312 of 2011, 24807 & 25019 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2013, M.P.Nos.2 & 2 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 & C.M.P.Nos.8855, 8856, 8859, 8860, 8887, 8888, 9113 & 9114 of 2017 & W.M.P.No.6153 of 2016
Decided On : 31-07-2023
Promotion - Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services - G.O.Ms.No.92, P&AR(C) Department dated 20.06.2012 - G.O.Ms.No.88, P&AR Department dated 15.06.2012 - Rule amendment - Denial of promotion based on amended Rule - Unlawful application of Rule - Notional promotion for retired employees
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the denial of promotion to employees in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services based on the amended Rule G.O.Ms.No.92 and G.O.Ms.No.88, which required a degree qualification for promotion. The employees were found eligible based on the unamended Rule but were denied promotion due to the retrospective application of the amended Rule.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the retrospective application of the amended Rule to deny promotion to eligible employees was unlawful. It held that the employees were entitled to promotion based on the Rule in effect at the time of their eligibility. The court directed notional promotion for retired employees and ordered the respondents to undertake the needful action within twelve weeks.
Issues: The issues involved the retrospective application of the amended Rule G.O.Ms.No.92 and G.O.Ms.No.88 to deny promotion to eligible employees, and the legality of the denial of promotion based on the amended Rule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that accrued benefits on the employee prior to the changing of the Rule cannot be denied. It emphasized that the right accrued on the employees cannot be denied due to the wrong application of the Rule. The court also criticized the Department Promotion Committee for deferring promotion in anticipation of an amendment.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, and the writ petitions were allowed. The court directed notional promotion for retired employees and ordered the respondents to undertake the needful action within twelve weeks.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent issued in G.O. (4D) No. 38 P & AR H1 Department dt 28.5.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as Section Officer by considering her name in the 2011-2012 Panel of Section Officer prepared as on 1.6.2011 above Thiru M.Murali her immediate Junior in the post of Assistant Section Officer with all monetary benefits.)
SURESH KUMAR, J
1. Since the issue raised in these writ appeals as well as the connected writ petitions is one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, these writ appeals as well as the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. That insofar as the writ appeals are concerned, the respective contesting respondents in these writ appeals were working as Section Officers in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services and their next avenue of promotion is Under Secretary. Therefore, as per the Rule which was in vogue, they became eligible to be considered for promotion for the panel year 2011-12 by taking the crucial date as 01.09.2010.
3. However, there has been an amendment to the Rule called Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services Rules, which has got amended by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.92, P&AR(C) Department dated 20.06.2012, under which the method of recruitment by promotion to the post of Under Secretary has got amended. According to the preamended Rule, the incumbent must have rendered service for a period of not less than two years in the category of Section Officer except in the departments of Law and Finance. Insofar as the contesting respondents in these writ appeals are concerned, they rendered two years service as Section Officers in the concerned Department well prior to the crucial date ie., on 01.09.2010. Therefore, they are entitled to get promoted to the post of Under Secretary through the panel for the year 2011-12.
4. However, by virtue of the amendment that has been made the qualification required for holding the post of Under Secretary has been amended, under which the qualification is to hold a degree of any University recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and must have rendered service for a period of not less than two years in the category of Section Officer in the departments of Secretariat other than Law and Finance. Therefore, as per the new Rule or amended Rule, the requirement was that, apart from the experience in the Section Officer category, the incumbent must hold a degree of any University recognized by the UGC.
5. Though this amendment through the Government Order has come into effect from 20.06.2012 and till such date since the 2011-12 panel has not been finalized, the employer ie., the State Government decided to implement the amended Rule to these contesting respondents also. By thus, the promotion for the panel year 2011-12 taking into account the crucial date as 01.09.2010, was denied to these people as they did not have the degree qualification. Challenging the same, these contesting respondents approached the writ Court by filing respective writ petitions and all those writ petitions were allowed, of course by separate orders, as against which or aggrieved by the same, these intra court appeals were directed by the State Government.
6. Insofar as the writ petitions are concerned, the petitioners were working as Assistant Section Officer in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services and therefore, they are entitled to get further promotion to the post of Section Officer, for which the crucial date was 01.06.2010 for two writ petitioners and 01.06.2011 for one writ petitioner for the panel years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.
7. In their case also, since the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services Rules got amended by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.88, P&AR Dep
Accrued benefits on the employee prior to the changing of the Rule cannot be denied. The right accrued on the employees cannot be denied due to the wrong application of the Rule.
An employee must possess the requisite qualifications at the time of publication of a promotion panel, and subsequent disqualification is grounds for exclusion.
Administrative delays should not adversely affect an employee's promotional prospects, allowing for notional promotions post-retirement under specific rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee cannot compel the employer to grant promotion if the Government's decision is supported by valid reasons and is not arbitrary.
when a new post is created, the concept of Rules obtaining when the vacancies arose is inappiicable as what is created is a new post on account of re-structuring of the cadre.
Government servants are entitled to promotion after the punishment period if otherwise eligible, and government letters cannot impose restrictions contrary to statutory rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.