Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.VINOD KUMAR
M.Ponraj Selvakumar – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility criteria for deputation (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. discretion of appointing authority and application of rules (Para 11 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 38) |
| 3. impact of disciplinary proceedings on eligibility (Para 12 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. interpretation of disqualification rules (Para 31 , 33 , 34 , 37) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition (Para 39) |
ORDER :
T. Vinod Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents R4 to R6 and perused the record.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, he had joined the service of the respondents as Junior Assistant in the year 1988 and was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 27.02.2015; that the official respondents while considering the names for being sent for training as Municipal Commissioner Grade I, from and among the employees of Municipal Administration, did not recommend the name of the petitioner, even though he is senior to all the three candidates whose names have been recommended and approved
Pending disciplinary proceedings disqualify a candidate from being considered for promotion or deputation, which must comply with established rules.
Appointments on deputation do not confer a right to continue beyond the specified term, and the distinction between transfer and appointment on deputation is significant.
Only aggrieved persons with the requisite eligibility can challenge appointments, and the true nature of an appointment must be assessed beyond its terminology.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of seniority should be based on the Quota-Rota method prescribed in Rule 2(c) of the Special Rules, and the regularisation o....
A deputationist has no vested right and can be repatriated for valid reasons, and public interest and administrative exigencies are valid grounds for transfer.
Point of law: Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings Under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unr....
Promotion eligibility requires continuous service without gaps; prior service on deputation does not count if repatriated before direct recruitment.
The court established that seniority must be fixed retrospectively, and actions that undermine an employee's rightful promotion based on ignored ACRs are impermissible and require rectification.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
