Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The Director of College Education – Appellant
Versus
S.E.Suresh – Respondent
W.A.No.3010 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.20644 of 2021
Decided on : 24-06-2024
PROMOTION - SENIORITY - The court upheld the Writ Court's decision to promote the 1st respondent, Mr. S.E. Suresh, to the post of Superintendent with retrospective effect, emphasizing that administrative delays should not hinder rightful promotions based on seniority and service benefits.
Fact of the Case:
Mr. S.E. Suresh was notionally promoted to Assistant on 24.06.2005 and later promoted to Superintendent on 20.03.2013. His promotion was delayed due to administrative issues, while Smt. S. Kalpana was promoted on 05.12.2013, placing Suresh's seniority above hers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the administrative delay in declaring Suresh's probation should not affect his promotion rights. It confirmed that he was entitled to all consequential service benefits and should be promoted on par with his juniors.
Issues: Whether administrative delays can justify the denial of promotion and how seniority should be determined in light of such delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative delays do not negate the entitlement to promotion based on seniority and that the rightful seniority of the 1st respondent should be recognized.
Result: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Writ Court's order to promote Mr. S.E. Suresh with retrospective effect.
JUDGMENT :
[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the writ appeal and to set aside the order dated 17.08.2021 made in W.P.No.31712 of 2019 on the file of this Court.
The facts are not in dispute. The 1st respondent Mr.S.E.Suresh/writ petitioner was notionally promoted to the post of Assistant with effect form 24.06.2005. Subsequently, he was promoted as Superintendent with effect from 20.03.2013. One Smt.S.Kalpana was promoted as Superintendent on 05.12.2013 subsequently after the promotion of the writ petitioner. Thus, the seniority of the petitioner in the post of Assistant and Superintendent was placed above the said Smt.S.Kalpana.
2. The 1st respondent was appointed to the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds. His probation was declared on completion of two years of probation period on 24.02.2009 vide G.O.Ms.No.29, High Education Department. Since there was a delay in sending the 1st respondent to undergo Bavani Sagar Training, his promotion was delayed. Such an administrative delay cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the 1st respondent on par with his juniors, who were promoted to the post of Assistant and Superintendent earlier to his promotion.
3. In the present case, there was an administrative delay in declaring the probation of the petitioner and to regularise his services in the initial post from the date of his appointment. However, the services of the 1st respondent was regularised with effect from his initial date of appointment. That being so, he is entitled for all consequential service benefits. There is no impediment to consider the name of the 1st respondent for promotion to the post of Assistant and Superintendent. Thus, the Writ Court has rightly granted the relief in favour of the 1st respondent to promote him on par with his junior with retrospective effect.
4. With reference to the seniority, the name of the 1st respondent has been rightly placed above the name of Smt.S.Kalpana, since the said Smt.S.Kalpana was promoted as Superintendent on 05.12.2013, but the 1st respondent was promoted to the post of Superintendent with effect from 20.03.2013 as a remedial measure.
5. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the relief granted by the Writ Court in favour of the 1st respondent. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stand dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Administrative delays in service regularization do not preclude rightful promotions based on established seniority.
Seniority and promotion are to be determined based on the actual date of appointment, and a deemed date cannot be given for the period the candidate was not born in the service.
Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee, but consideration for promotion is a Fundamental Right.
The right to promotion and seniority under the Special Rules must be upheld, ensuring eligible candidates are prioritized over direct recruits.
An employee cannot be denied promotion and seniority due to the unjustified delay on the part of the government.
Delayed claims in service matters can unsettle settled positions, making them unmaintainable without necessary parties involved.
Consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee, and once retrospectively promoted, the benefit of the retrospective promotion should be extended for further promotion.
Promotion seniority should not be altered based on delays in qualification if it complies with probation rules, affirming the importance of adhering to original seniority assignments.
Settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a significant delay without timely objections to established seniority listings.
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
