SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
R.SUBRAMANIAN, K.SURENDER, JJ.
Dr.L.Arul Sundaresh Kumar - Appellant 
Versus 
Dr.J.A.Jayalal - Respondent 
W.A.Nos.924, 1246 and 1258 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.7822, 9454 and 9578 of 2024
Decided on : 04-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani,  Mr.S.Sridharan
For the Respondents: Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for Mr.Godson Swaminathan, Mr.K.Nishanth, Mrs.M.Sneha, Special Counsel, Mr.V.P.Sarathi,  Mr.S.Sridharan,  Ms.T.Divya, Mr.Adinarayana Rao

Candidates should not be denied promotions due to delays not attributable to them, especially when they meet the necessary qualifications at the time of panel preparation.

Headnote:(A) Government Order G.O.

(D).No.1044 - Promotion of Government Doctors - Mandamus for inclusion in panel for promotion to Deans' posts was sought due to delays in promotions caused by administrative reasons, including model code of conduct - Court upheld the right to promotion when qualifications were met, dismissing claims that experience requirements could not be relaxed based on circumstances beyond the candidates' control. (Paras 2, 12, 24, 30)

(B) Civil Service - Principles of promotion - Candidates should not be penalized for delays not attributable to them - Inflexible rigidities in promotion processes can lead to substantial injustice to qualified candidates. (Paras 15, 30)

Facts of the case:
Writ appeals were filed by government doctors challenging an order promoting other individuals to Deans’ posts despite having met all qualifications but being denied due to an incomplete service period caused by delayed promotions for administrative reasons indicative of model conduct. (Para 9)

Findings of Court:
Promotions delayed due to circumstances such as a model code of conduct should not hinder qualified candidates who have met experience requirements contemporaneously with the promotion panel preparation date. (Paras 12, 34)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the promotion criteria, particularly the 5-year experience requirement, could be relaxed due to administrative delays. (Paras 13, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the promotion denials were unjust as they resulted from administrative delays in granting previous promotions, making the candidates eligible for promotion by the time the necessary panel was prepared. (Paras 30, 32)

Result: Writ Appeals dismissed; orders of the writ court upheld without costs.

Table of Content
1. promotion process and qualifications of applicants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. timeline of events and administrative actions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments regarding waiver of experience requirements. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 21 , 22)
4. supreme court precedents on promotion qualifications. (Para 15 , 20 , 26 , 28)
5. court's reasoning on promotion eligibility despite delays. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. various arguments opposing the promotion criteria and their implications are noted. (Para 24 , 25)
7. conclusive findings that emphasize the need for flexibility in meeting promotion criteria. (Para 34)
8. final decision to dismiss writ appeals without costs. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Challenge in all these Writ Appeals is to the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in several Writ Petitions filed by the 1st respondent in all these Writ Appeals.

2. The Writ Petitions came to be filed seeking a prayer for Mandamus directing the Government to include the petitioners in the Writ Petitions in the panel for the year 2024-2025 for promotion to the post of Deans in various Medical Colleges, which comes under the common pool based on the Civil Medical List (CML) seniority, without reference to the date of joining in the post of Professor.

3. In some of the Writ Petitions challenge was to the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.1044, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 03.10.2024 issued by the Government promoting the respondents 4 to 17 in W.P.No.31048 of 2024 and respondents 3 to 16 in W.P.No.31335 of 2024.

The necessity for the Writ Petitions arose in the following backdrop:-

4. The promotion opportunities for Government Doctors in the services of the Health Department are as follows:

The lowest post is that of a Civil Assistant Surgeon and the next promotional post from the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon is the Associate Professor. The Associate Professor who has put in 3 years of service with four publications is entitled to get promoted as a Professor. A Professor who completes 5 years of service is entitled to be considered for promotion as a Dean of the Medical College Hospital.

5. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent in all these Writ Appeals had been promoted as Associate Professors and they had the required qualification for being promoted as Professors. By G.O.(4D)No.2 dated 15.02.2019, the Director of Medical Education sanctioned posts of Professors and directed conduct of counselling. It is to be noted that this counselling was done after 7 years and the immediate prior counselling for promotion to the post of Professor was done in the year 2012. When the counselling was notified in February 2019, certain Writ Petitions were filed before Madurai Bench of this Court challenging the said counselling by persons belonging to 11 Disciplines/ Departments. It is averred that there was an oral order of stay granted by the Court in respect of those Departments, promotions in which were subject matter of Writ Petitions.

6. While the Associate Professors in other Departments were promoted pursuant to the counselling held in February 2019, the Associate Professors in at least 11 Disciplines were not promoted, despite the fact that counselling was held. Though the Writ Petitions were disposed of by March 2019, since the model code of conduct came into force from 11.03.2019, the Associate Professors belonging to these 11 specialities were not favoured with an order of promotion. After the model code of conduct was lifted, the 1st respondent in all these Writ Appeals were promoted on 30.09.2019 vide G.O.(D)No.1485 dated 30.09.2019 and those persons assumed office as Professors on 01.10.2019. Except for the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology where promotions were made in May 2019.

7. The dispute arose when the counselling was held for promotion of Professors as Deans of Medical Colleges in the year 2024. Though the 1st respondent in all these appeals w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top