Relinquishment of a right or privilege for promotion must be evaluated based on the state of affairs at the expiry of the relinquishment period, affecting eligibility for promotion.

ORDER :

C.SARAVANAN, J.

This Writ Petition was allowed in the Open Court on 05.02.2025. However, while correcting it in Chambers, it was realized that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner which has been referred to in the succeeding paragraphs of this order are irrelevant and not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the order that was passed on 05.02.2025 was recalled and listed “for clarification” today i.e., on 20.02.2025 and therefore a different conclusion is arrived by dismissing this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the respondent, wherein, the request of the petitioner to be promoted as a “Probation Officer” for the panel year 2002- 2003 has been rejected.

3. Operative portion of the Impugned Order dated 15.10.2014 reads as under:-

“6. The Government have examined the appeal petition of the individual in the light of the relevant rules and connected records. As per Sub rule (2) of rule 47 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, relinquishment of a right or privilege for temporary period shall be accepted if it is made for a period not less than 3 years subject to the condition that after the expiry of the said period, the claim of the right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the state of affairs that exist on the date of expiry of period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. According to the said rules, the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons has rightly fixed the seniority of Thiru H.Imthiaz Ahmed when he was again promoted as Assistant. The request for restoration of seniority in the post of Assistant to the original position prior to reversion/relinquishment was rejected by the Government as stated in the Government letter fifth read above. Regarding the contention of the appellant that he was senior to Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran, Assistants on the crucial date for drawal of panel for the post of Probation Officer by recruitment by transfer for the year 2002-2003 i.e., on 15.07.2002, and he was fully eligible for inclusion in the said panel, it is stated that the crucial date is a cut-off date to decide who are the eligible candidates having the requisite qualifications for consideration for inclusion in the panel. But, while drawing the panel subsequent changes such as retirement, pending disciplinary proceedings/disciplinary proceedings initiated, punishments imposed relinquishment of right, subsequent revision in the seniority and other factors relating to the status of the individual have to be taken into account. Merely having his name in the seniority list and requisite qualification on the crucial date will not confer any right on an individual for claiming inclusion of his name in the panel and for promotion to the next higher category. In the instant case on the date of drawal of panel his seniority in the post of Assistant had already been revised (included in the seniority list published as on 1.1.2007 as Sl.No.120) and automatically he would become ineligible for consideration of his name as he is far junior to the individuals cited by him (out of zone of consideration) on the date of drawal of panel. Further his services in the post of Assistant were regularized only with effect from 01.06.2006.

7. In view of the above, the Government have decided to reject his request. Accordingly, the Government reject the appeal petition first read above, preferred by Thiru H.Imthiaz Ahmed, Assistant requesting to include his name in the regular panel of Assistants fit for appointment as Probation Officer by recruitment by transfer for the year 2002-2003 as devoid of merits.”

4. The case of the petitioner is that, the crucial date for the panel year 2002-2003 for promotion to the post of “Probation Officer” was 15.07.2002. It is the further case of the petitioner that, as per the seniority lis