The age criteria for promotion must be determined based on the year of selection, not the year of appointment, ensuring fairness in the promotion process.

ORDER :

N.Mala, J.

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to grant the petitioner promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner with effect from 2014 to 2015 as per seniority list published by the respondent along with all attendant and consequential benefits including service promotion and other terminal benefits.

2.The facts in a nut shell are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the office of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment on 22.05.1985, through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant in the year 1992 and subsequently as Inspector in the year 1998 and further promoted as Superintendent on 01.04.2010. On 31.05.2015, the petitioner retired on superannuation. According to the petitioner, by virtue of her seniority and qualification she was placed 4^th in seniority for the panel year 2013-2014 for appointment to 12 vacant posts of Assistant Commissioner. Due to administrative delay, the D.P.C. Meeting was conducted after the expiry of the panel period. Three persons, who were senior to the petitioner were promoted and appointed by recruitment by transfer to the said post of Assistant Commissioner. Though the petitioner was found fit for promotion for panel year 2013-2014, she was not promoted in the said panel year. In the panel year 2014-2015, the petitioner was ranked first in the seniority list and was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner as she had acquired qualification as well as seniority. The petitioner states that though she was found fit for the panel year 2014-2015, she was not considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the specious ground that she crossed the age of 57 years. The petitioner further states that the denial of promotion was untenable and against G.O.Ms.No.291, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment dated 16.03.1986, which introduced the amended Rule 2(A) to Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Administration Service Rules. The said Rule clearly stated that the crucial date for possessing the prescribed qualification for appointment to any of the post in the service by promotion or by recruitment by transfer was first October of each year. According to the petitioner, as per the aforesaid G.O., the process of preparation of panel started from the first of October of the preceding year and ended in March of the succeeding year and thus the crucial date for panel drawal for the year 2014- 2015 was 01.10.2013, and the panel period started from 19.03.2014 to 18.03.2015. According to the petitioner, as she had not completed 57 years of age as on 01.07.2013, she fulfilled the required qualifications for promotion, namely, seniority, prescribed qualifications and age criteria and therefore she was eligible for promotion and denial of the same to her was illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner further states that the respondent had on an earlier occasion promoted one L.Thulasingam for the panel year 2008-2009, as Assistant Commissioner on 29.06.2009 (ie) on the eve of his superannuation on 30.06.2009. According to the petitioner, the crucial date for possessing the requisite qualification, age and seniority in the case of the said L.Thulasingam was considered as on 01.10.2007 i.e. the first of October of preceding year. The petitioner states that if the same criteria were applied to her, she would be eligible for promotion for the panel year 2014-2015, as on the crucial date of 01.10.2013, she satisfied all eligibility criteria including age. As the respondents discriminated the petitioner by adopting the cut off date for age as 01.07.2014, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent on 06.04.2014, but no prudent action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2015, and left with no other alternative remedy, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3.The respondents filed detail