Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
P. Vasantha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Principal Secretary Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St George, Chennai & Others – Respondents
WP. No. 12204/2017 & WMP. Nos. 13002 & 13003/2017
Decided On : 01-08-2023
Relinquishment - Promotion Dispute - Rule 47[2] of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service [D&A] Rules - The court discussed the interpretation of Rule 47[2] which deals with the relinquishment of rights by government servants, whether temporary or permanent, and its implications on promotion. The court held that the petitioner's relinquishment was only temporary in nature and directed the respondents to include the petitioner in the panel for promotion after the period of three years from the date of the relinquishment letter to ensure that seniority of others promoted earlier is not affected.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, sought promotion as Block Development Officer but had earlier submitted a letter relinquishing the promotion opportunity based on medical and family reasons. The respondents construed the relinquishment as permanent and refused to consider her for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's relinquishment was only temporary in nature and directed the respondents to include her in the panel for promotion after the period of three years from the date of the relinquishment letter.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Rule 47[2] and whether the petitioner's relinquishment was temporary or permanent, impacting her right to be considered for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 47[2] and held that the petitioner's relinquishment was temporary, and she should be considered for promotion after the specified period, ensuring no impact on the seniority of others promoted earlier.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to include the petitioner in the panel for promotion after the specified period from the date of the relinquishment letter.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of 3rd respondent dated 04.04.2017 in Na.Ka.No.13407/2014/Ni.2 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to forthwith promote the petitioner as the Block Development Officer with effect from the date of the promotion of the juniors to the petitioner.)
(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records of the 3rd respondent, the District Collector, Salem, in proceedings Na.Ka.No.8029/2016/Ni.1 dated 04.04.2017 and the further order dated 21.05.2014 also by the said 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.13407/2014/Ni.2 and quash both the said proceedings.
(2) The petitioner had joined as a Typist in the Rural Development Department at Trichy District on 11.11.1988. She was then transferred from Trichy District to Salem District. She was then promoted as Assistant on 07.11.1997 and as Extension Officer [Small Savings] on 20.06.2006. The said post was then upgraded and the petitioner was posted as Deputy Block Development Officer [Small Savings]. She has been working at Ayodhyapattinam Panchayat Union. She had also worked as Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer at Tharamangalam Panchayat Union in Salem District. The seniority of the petitioner as Deputy Block Development Officer was determined at Serial No.134 on 11.03.2009. Thereafter, there was an opportunity for the Deputy Block Development Officers to be further promoted as Block Development Officers. For reasons which she claimed based on medical condition, she submitted a request on 18.09.2013, requesting the 3rd respondent/District Collector, Salem, to defer her promotion from Deputy Block Development Officer [Panchayat] to Block Development Officer.
(3) The petitioner claims that such relinquishment was temporary in nature. However, it is her grievance that the respondents had construed her relinquishment as permanent in nature and did not consider her for promotion when the opportunity actually came up when the panel for promotion was drawn in the year 2018. The petitioner had raised a grievance on that particular aspect and the impugned order came to be passed holding that she had herself voluntarily relinquished the promotional opportunity on a permanent basis. She had sent a further representation protesting the said decision. But, again the same stand was taken by the respondents.
(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Rule 47[2] of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, which relates to voluntary relinquishment of promotional opportunities by a Government servant. Learned counsel insisted that relinquishment given by the petitioner on 18.09.2013 was only temporary in nature and had been wrongly misconstrued by the respondents as is one of permanent relinquishment.
(5) Learned Additional Government Pleader, however pointed out that the petitioner herself had voluntarily written the letter and it is contended that she was not interested in being promoted as Block Development Officer citing health reasons. It was therefore, contended that the petitioner has no inherent right to seek promotion particularly after giving a letter without any undue influence or any other extraneous influence being imposed on her. It is therefore, contended that the 3rd respondent was correct in applying the second part of Rule 47[2] of the aforementioned Rules and holding that the relinquishment given by the petitioner was permanent in nature and refusing to consider her for promotion.
(6) The entire issue surrounds on the interpretation of Rule 47[2] of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service [D&A] Rules. The said provision is as follows:-
''''47:-Relinquishment of Rights by members:-
(1).....
(2) Relinquishment of a right or privilege for a te
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 47[2] and its application to the petitioner's relinquishment, emphasizing the distinction between temporary and perma....
Relinquishment of promotion rights under service rules does not permanently bar future promotions if not explicitly stated as irrevocable.
Acceptance of relinquishment for promotion is effective until acted upon by authorities as per applicable statutes.
Relinquishment of promotion to a particular vacancy does not permanently extinguish the right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in the future, as per the interpretation of Rule 28....
Inordinate delay in seeking promotion and approaching the authorities only after superannuation may preclude entitlement to relief sought in a Writ Petition.
Rule 28 of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 does not permanently extinguish an employee's right to be considered for promotion, in line with fundamental rights under Article 16(1) of ....
Point of law: Explanation which provides that, the relinquishment of right of promotion shall entail loss of seniority, only clarifies the position flowing from Rule 38.
The main legal point established is that Rule 38 of Part II KS & SSR does not restrict the period of relinquishment, and the Government Order does not limit the period of temporary relinquishment to ....
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
