Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
V.L. Benin Deva Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 19138 of 2015, W.M.P. (MD) No. 2241 of 2016
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Writ Petition - Seniority List - The court allowed the petitioners to submit a representation regarding the fixation of a 50:50 ratio between direct recruits and promotees for seniority before further promotions, emphasizing the need for consideration of all stakeholders' interests in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a seniority list dated 01.01.2019 and sought to quash it, requesting a proper notification of seniority for B.T. Assistants based on a 50:50 ratio between direct recruits and promotees before further promotions.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioners were willing to submit a representation instead of pursuing the challenge to the seniority list directly. The court found that the private respondents did not object to this course of action.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could submit a representation regarding the seniority list and the fixation of the 50:50 ratio before further promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the interests of all stakeholders and allowed the petitioners to submit a representation, mandating a decision based on merits and in accordance with law.
Result: The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioners to submit a representation, and the second respondent was ordered to consider it and pass final orders within a specified timeframe.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent related to the seniority list drawn as on 01.01.2019 produced along with the Director's Letter addressed to Special Government Pleader dated 11.12.2020 on 15.12.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondent to notify the seniority list of B.T. Assistant (Promotees) and the directly recruited consolidated pay B.T. Assistant between 2002-2006 and 2011-2014 by following the ratio of 50-50 fixed between the Direct Recruits and the promotees before effecting further promotion to the post of Headmaster / Headmistress or P.G. Assistant.
1. When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioners on instructions would submit that though the petitioners have challenged the impugned seniority list, the petitioners will be satisfied if they are allowed to give a representation to the second respondent to fix the ratio of 50:50 fixed between the direct recruits and the promotees, before effecting further promotion to the post of Head Master / Head Mistress or P.G. Assistants and a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective private respondents even though raised objections with regard to the relief sought for by the petitioners, they have not raised any serious objection if the representation of the petitioner is directed to be considered on merits and in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the interest of all the stake holders.
3. Accordingly, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent seeking for a relief as sought for in this writ petition within a period of two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation, the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
The court established that stakeholders' interests must be considered in administrative decisions regarding seniority and promotions, allowing for representations to be made and addressed appropriate....
Established seniority lists must be adhered to unless timely objections are raised; age considerations alone do not override settled seniority.
The main legal point established is that promotions to the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster are based on seniority, as per the directions issued by the court.
Seniority once settled cannot be unsettled after a long delay, and an order given in ignorance of the terms of a Statute or a rule having the force of Statute is per incuriam.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the second respondent to pass necessary orders for the fixation of correct seniority on par with S. Shanmugam in th....
The court emphasized the conditions for a post to be considered promotional, principles for determining seniority, and the legality of the notification of merger.
The court emphasized that denial of promotion based on fabricated charges violates administrative fairness and ignored prescribed ratio guidelines for promotions.
Employment and Service matter - Re-assessment of seniority - As per Rule 3(1)(b), seniority of teachers in a grade has to be determined on basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, meanin....
Prompt action is required in matters relating to seniority, and belated interference with settled matters can have adverse effects and serious administrative implications.
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
