IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the mandatory nature of cadre review within five years, the impact of delayed statutory functions on employees' rights, and the court's power to mitigate the hardship caused by such delays.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat GSR 929(E) Department of Personnel and Training dated 30.12.2022, with retrospective effect from 06.06.2019 and directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for the promotion to the IAS Cadre for the State of Tamil Nadu in accordance with law.

1. This writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to treat GSR 929E Department of Personnel and Training dated 30.12.2022 of the first respondent with retrospective effect from 06.06.2019.

2. The petitioner joined as Assistant in Group-II Services in the Revenue Department of the State of Tamil Nadu on 04.11.1989. He was included in the panel of District Revenue Officers for the year 2012 with effect from 22.02.2013. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of District Revenue Officer and now he is working as District Revenue Officer. The Post of District Revenue officer is one of the feeder category for promotion to the Tamil Nadu Cadre (State Service) to the Indian Administrative Services. Further, the criteria is that the candidate must not have completed 56 years of age at the time of year of review of cadre. The first respondent carries out cadre strength review of States with retrospective effect and ensures that any person who otherwise eligible, misses out on promotion due crossing the age on the date of notification, will still be considered eligible for promotion to IAS, IPS or IFS cadre. Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the first respondent notified GSR 383E dated 06.06.2004, issued the Tamil Nadu Indian Administrative Services (fixation of cadre strength). In accordance with the mandate of Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the composition of cadre strength for the State of Tamil Nadu was to be re-examined. It ordinarily mandatory for the first respondent to re-examine the strength of each such cadre in consultation with the second respondent at intervals of every five years. However it was not carried out at the interval of every five years. Therefore, the petitioner would be materially affected for promotion to the post of IAS cadre.

2.1 Though he is eligible for promotion to IAS cadre in the year 2019, there were no vacancies. If the cadre re-examination was carried out once in five years, the total number of posts would be increased and the petitioner would be promoted to the IAS cadre, Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondents seeking to carryout mandatory re-examination of cadre strength. However, it was not considered and as such, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Madurai Bench of this Court in WP (MD) No. 11534 of 2021 seeking direction to consider his representation to carry out cadre review at the earliest. By an order dated 15.03.2022, the writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner filed writ appeal in WA. (MD) No. 399 of 2022. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 28.04.2022, dismissed the writ appeal. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No. 13163 of 2022 and by an order dated 10.11.2022, disposed of the petition with observation that with hope and trust that the respondents would finalise the cadre strength for the panel year 2019. The first respondent conducted re-examination of the cadre composition for IAS cadre for the State of Tamil Nadu and issued GSR 929(E) Department of Personnel and Training dated 30.12.2022. Accordingly the posts were increased from 376 to 394 with effect from the date of notification. However, the first respondent failed to give its effect with retrospective effect for the panel year 2019 to the review. As such, the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted on the ground that he is now age barred. Therefore, the petitioner also filed application in