A qualified individual must be included in a promotion panel subject to vacancies, regardless of the inclusion of juniors.

JUDGMENT

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Challenge is to the order of the Writ Court up holding the order dated 18.01.2023 made by the first respondent rejecting the claim of the appellant for inclusion in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006.

2. The appellant joined the services of the Revenue Department in the District Revenue Unit at Ramanathapuram, as a Junior Assistant on 05.01.1993. His probation was declared with effect from 04.02.1995 and his services were regularized in the cadre of Assistant with effect from 04.01.1996. He was transferred on deputation to the office of the Commissioner of Land Administration on 24.12.1996. He had completed the probation and has passed the Departmental Training Test and had undergone the Revenue Inspector Training between 27.12.2000 and 06.01.2003. He has also passed the Surveyor Test on 27.08.2003.

3.Upon obtaining the above qualifications, he had qualified for being included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006 itself in terms of Rule 7(A) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules . However, the City List of Deputy Tahsildars was never drawn up for a considerable time and the City Lists of Deputy Tahsildars for the period from 2005-2010 were published only on 01.04.2011. According to the appellant, to his dismay, he found that his name was included in the panel of City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2007 instead of 2006. He made a representation seeking that his name should have been included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006. The third respondent, in whose office the appellant was serving, made a recommendation confirming that the appellant is entitled to be included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006.

4. Since the same was not considered, the appellant made another representation on 27.12.2013. The said representation was rejected on 23.01.2017 and a Review Petition was filed. The Review was dismissed on 26.11.2019 leading to the appellant moving this Court by way of WP No.8120 of 2020. This Court by its order dated 02.11.2022 made in the aforesaid Writ Petition set aside the order and required the respondents to reconsider the issue in the light of the observations made. Thereafter, the matter was again examined by the respondents and the order impugned in the Writ Petition dated 18.01.2023 was passed rejecting the request on the ground that since none of his juniors were included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006, the appellant’s name cannot be included.

5. The Writ Court had accepted the contention of the respondents that since none of his juniors were included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006, the petitioner’s name cannot also be included. On the said conclusion, the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved the appellant is on Appeal.

6. We have heard Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Akash Srinanda, for the appellant and Mr.P.Ananatha Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

7. Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Akash Srinanda, for the appellant would vehemently contend that the reason assigned viz. that none of the juniors of the appellant have been included in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006 and therefore, the appellant’s name cannot be included is erroneous. He would draw our attention to the admitted fact that the appellant was qualified for inclusion in the City List of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 2006. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, when a list is drawn up all persons qualified will have to be included subject of post to the availability of vacancies.

8. On the availability of vacancies, the learned counsel would seek our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents which shows that one vacancy in each panel was left unfilled for want of qualified hands. This, according to the learned counsel, is incorrect, when the appellant wa