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.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent vide G.O.(Ms) No.142 (Commercial Taxes & Registration(E2) Department, dated 27.12.2023 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 & 2 to promote the petitioner in accordance with his seniority as per G.O.Ms.No.72 (Commercial Taxes & Registration(E1) Department, dated 07.07.2023.

2. The petitioner was originally recruited as Assistant Commissioner by Direct Recruitment in the year 2009 and currently working as Deputy Commissioner in Chennai - II Intelligence Division. The petitioner’s promotion to Deputy Commissioner was delayed due to a pending examination as on the crucial date for that year i.e., 01.01.2013. Then the petitioner completed his examination on 18.02.2013 and his probation was declared by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 21.08.2013 with effect from 18.02.2013 which was before drawing of panel. The petitioner completed the examination within the time limit for completion of probation as required under Rule 6 of the Special Rules (excluding leave period as allowed under Proviso to Section 32 ). Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted in the year 2020 vide G.O(Ms).No.86 dated 18.05.2020. Subsequently, the seniority of the petitioner has been fixed correctly as having rank 29 amongst his batch mates by G.O(Ms).No.72 dated 07.07.2023. Pursuant to the Supreme Court order for fixing of seniority, the Department refixed the seniority on the basis of marks obtained in the TNPSC. This seniority now sought to be disturbed by the impugned order. Further, the petitioner gave representation on 20.12.2023 and on 16.08.2023 requesting further promotions to the post of Joint Commissioner in accordance with the original seniority. Despite several representations given by the petitioner, he was not considered for promotion to Joint Commissioner while his six juniors were promoted temporarily, by leaving out the petitioner. However, the respondent passed impugned order leaving out petitioner. Hence, this present writ petition.

3. Per contra, the 2nd respondent denied all the allegations put forth by the petitioner herein. The respondent claims that the petitioner ought to have been the prescribed tests before 04.10.2012 by which, the three year period for completion of probation ends. However, the petitioner passed the examination in Accountancy-Junior Grade only in the February 2013. As a consequence, his probation was declared to have been completed satisfactorily within the extended period of probation on 18.02.2013 which was the date of sitting for the aforementioned examination. Subsequently, a panel was drawn on 18.10.2013 and the petitioner was overlooked on account for his not being eligible for such promotion as on the crucial date for consideration for inclusion in the panel i.e., 01.01.2013. Then no promotion panels were drawn for the years from 2014 to 2018 and panel was drawn in the year 2019. In between, the petitioner was issued with charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 14.03.2014 and the said disciplinary proceedings were dropped on 11.10.2019. Thereaf