Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
N. Rajasekar – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department – Respondent
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 ). Thereaft
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.
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....
Promotions and seniority must strictly conform to service regulations, particularly concerning departmental test qualifications, to maintain organizational integrity and prevent arbitrary favoritism ....
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of seniority should be based on the Quota-Rota method prescribed in Rule 2(c) of the Special Rules, and the regularisation o....
Temporary promotees cannot claim seniority above directly appointed employees as per Section 47(5) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
The court held that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long period, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and the limits of administrative power in altering promotion dates.
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
