Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Prof. Dr.V.P.Mohan Gandhi, M.S. (Ortho) Son of Ponnusamy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P.No.32592 of 2024 & W.M.P.Nos.35429 & 35430 of 2024
Decided on : 24-03-2025
(A) Government Orders - G.O.
(D).No.1037 and G.O.
(D).No.1044 - Promotion to the post of Dean - The petitioner, a Professor, challenged the Government Orders affecting his promotion due to incomplete service duration - The court found that the delay in promotion was not attributable to the petitioner and directed inclusion in the promotion panel. (Paras 9, 49)
(B) Service Law - Promotion criteria - The court emphasized that administrative delays should not disadvantage eligible candidates, affirming that seniority in the feeder category is crucial for promotions. (Paras 38, 44)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Professor since 2019, was denied promotion due to not completing five years of service as of a crucial date, despite participating in promotion counselling. The court noted that the delay was not the petitioner's fault.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the promotion panel for Dean, recognizing the administrative delay and affirming eligibility based on seniority.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was eligible for promotion despite not meeting the five-year requirement and the impact of administrative delays on promotion rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the administrative delay should not penalize the petitioner, and that eligibility for promotion should be based on seniority and participation in counselling.
Result: The impugned Government Order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be promoted to the post of Dean.
ORDER :
This writ petition had been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to G.O.(D).No.1037 Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 01.10.2024 and the consequent Government Order in G.O.(D).No.1044, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 03.10.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
2. The petitioner had joined in Tamil Nadu Medical Service on 01.10.1997 and is now working as Professor in Head of Department, Orthopaedics in the Government Medical College at Vellore. It had been stated that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion, as he had not completed 5 years of service as a Professor and therefore, the impugned Government Orders have been passed, directly affecting the service of the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties.
4. The issue is no longer res integra. A Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.26560 of 2025 etc., batch, Prof.Dr.R.Manonmani and other vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, had passed the following order, which was delivered on 26.02.2025.
3. Initially, W.P.No.26560 of 2024 came to be filed by the two petitioners seeking a direction to the official respondents to consider the inclusion of their names in the 2024-2025 panel for the post of Dean consequent upon the promotion counselling conducted on 26.2.2019 and in accordance with the subsequent proceedings of the second respondent dated 05.7.2024.
4. W.P.No.26560 of 2024 came to be disposed of by an order dated 12.9.2024 in the following terms :
“3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners 1 & 2 are working as Associate Professors from 2013 onwards. Subsequently, a promotion counselling was conducted on 26.02.2019 and the order of promotion for the post of Professor was issued on 03.05.2019 and both the petitioners joined the post of Professor on 15.05.2019 and 13.05.2019 respectively.
4. The State Government issued orders in G.O.(4D). No.2, dated 15.02.2019 to streamline the teaching post in the Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals under the control of DME by sanctioning the post matrix for Speciality Department in every Government Medical Colleges and attached institutions. Accordingly, the Government directed conducting promotional counselling for the post of Professor after the completion of the transfer counselling subject to the availability of the vacancies and preparation of panel.
5. In the light of the above G.O, circulars were issued by the 2nd respondent dated 22.02.2019 and 24.02.2019 to conduct promotional counselling for all the Speciality Departments for promotion to the post of Professors. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, since they were fully qualified and completed three years of service in the post of Associate Professor, there were allowed to participate in the promotional counselling conducted on 26.02.2019. The further case of the petitioners is that the Dean of a Medical College is an Administrative Post coming under the common pool and the feeder post for the same is the post of Professor and the seniority is taken into consideration in the CML in all the Speciality Departments.
6. The Government issued letter dated 26.06.2024 through which the 2nd respondent was directed to include the name of the Medical Officers promoted as Professors in different Speciality Departments including the OG Department for whom promotion order for the post of Professors was delayed in the year 2019. This happened due to the pendency of some writ petitions and also the following pandemic.
7. The 1st respondent passed orders on 26.06.2024 followed by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 05.07.2024 for rectification of the discrepancies in the matter of eligibility out of all medical officers who were given promotion as Professors based on the earlier
Administrative delays in promotions should not disadvantage eligible candidates, and seniority in the feeder category is essential for determining promotion eligibility.
Administrative delays should not prejudice candidates’ rights to promotion when eligibility is established, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to seniority in selections.
Candidates should not be denied promotions due to delays not attributable to them, especially when they meet the necessary qualifications at the time of panel preparation.
The court held that cumulative administrative experience from various roles qualifies for meeting the one-year requirement for the post of Dean, rejecting hyper-technical interpretations.
The completion of probation as per the proceedings issued by the competent authority is crucial in determining eligibility for inclusion in a promotion panel.
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 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
