The court emphasized that denial of promotion based on fabricated charges violates administrative fairness and ignored prescribed ratio guidelines for promotions.

ORDER :

P.T. ASHA, J.

The writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent R.C.No.1932/E1(1)/22 dated 13.03.2023 and R.C.No.1932/E1(1)/22 dated 30.03.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant promotion to the petitioner par with his juniors.”

2. The challenge is to the seniority list and promotion list issued by respondents 1 and 2 in and by which the juniors of the petitioner i.e. respondents 3 to 7 have been promoted.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Supervisor Grade-II (Handmade Paper) as per the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 18.06.1993. The petitioner was working without any remarks till 2016. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 21.09.2016. The next avenue of promotion is to the post of Assistant Director. The 2^nd respondent had prepared a panel list, in which the petitioner was the senior most superintendent for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. Respondents 3 to 7 were juniors to the petitioner, they have been appointed on 04.10.1993. Thereafter, respondents 3 to 7 were promoted as Superintendent on 18.01.2017. Though the petitioner’s name was included in the seniority panel list for the post of Assistant Director in the year 2022, however, due to manipulation by the 2^nd respondent, his name was deleted from the seniority list and his juniors, namely respondents 3 to 7 were included in the seniority list. The petitioner had immediately approached the 2^nd respondent questioning the seniority list. In order to get over this error, the 2^nd respondent appears to have created a fake charge against the petitioner and in the guise of there being a currency of charges, the petitioner’s name was not considered for selection and the juniors had been promoted. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, the feeder posts are under two categories (i) by transfer and (2) by promotion.

“A-B Assistant Director” BY TRANSFER from among the holders of the post of :-

1. KHADI WING:

Development Officer , (Khadi)

2. MINISTERIAL WING:

Senior Accounts Officer (Accounts/Bills/Costing) Personal Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer

3. VILLAGE INDUSTRIES WING:

Chief Analyst, Development Officer (Soap/Carpentry/Blacksmithy/Paper/Pottery/Leather)

BY PROMOTION

From the following categories of posts namely

a) KHADI WING

1. Khadi Officer

2. Assistant Khadi Officer

3. Mechanic (Rural Textiles Centre)

4. Assistant Manager (DB)

5. Lab Assistant (DB)

6. Master Tailor Gr.I

7. Shift Supervisor (Polyvastra)

8. Supervisor (Textiles Polyester)

b) MINISTERIAL WING

1. Junior Accounts Officer

2. Superintendent

3. Commercial Accountant

4. PS to Chief Executive Officer

5. Chief Cashier

6. Marketing Assistant

c) VILLAGE INDUSTRIES WING

1. Assistant Development Officer (C&B)

2. Chief Organiser (Fibre)

3. Assistant Development Officer (HMP)

4. ADO (Leather) Tanning/(Tanning Instructor)

5. Assistant Development Officer (Soap)

6. Assistant Development Officer (Oil)

7. Village Industries Co-operative Officer

8. Apiarist Gr.1

9. Chargeman, Gr. I (C&B)

10. District Inspector of Cottage Industries Gr I

11. Superintendent (HMP)

12. Senior Supervisor (Leather)

13. Senior Pottery Organiser

14. Assistant Manager (Central Leather Marketing Depot)

(i) Must have rendered not less than 12 years of service in Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board

(ii) Must have put in, not less than five years of service in the above said post.

(iii) The ratio among the above three wings sha