Pending disciplinary proceedings disqualify a candidate from being considered for promotion or deputation, which must comply with established rules.

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 under the impugned proceedings; and thus, the impugned Government Order, GO (D) No.383, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME- 1) Department dated 12.11.2020, is liable to be quashed.

3. The petitioner further contended that by deputing a Superintendent working in the third respondent Department for a period of two years on training to work as the Municipal Commissioner Grade I, makes him eligible for being appointed to the post of Municipal Commissioner of Selection Grade; that insofar as the services of Municipal Commissioners are concerned, the same are governed by Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Municipal Commissioners Services; that in order to be eligible for being sent on deputation, one should have put in not less than 5 years of service in the post of the Superintendent to the office of the Directorate of Municipal Administration; and that not more than three Superintendents are to be deputed at any given point of time.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that already two Superintendents were drawn to work as Municipal Commissioner Grade I on deputation basis; and that by the impugned G.O, the respondents are seeking to depute three more Superintendents; and that the said action, is contrary to proviso to Clause (ii) to Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Commissioners Service Rules.

5. The petitioner further contended that in order to prepare the annual list of approved candidates who have completed five years of service in the post of Superintendent, Rule 3 of the Rules prescribes the crucial date to be 15th March every year; and that the private respondents who are deputed under the impugned G.O, did not have requisite qualification of service and as such, the respondents could not have included the names of the private respondents in the panel list, much less by granting relaxation of the mandatory qualifications.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that though on the date when the respondents prepared the annual list of approved candidates for being appointed on deputation to work as Municipal Commissioner Grade I, departmental proceedings were pending against him, since the special rule does not impose any bar to include the name of an employee who is facing charges for being sent on deputation, the respondents could not have excluded the petitioner for being included in the annual list for being appointed as Municipal Commissioner Grade I on deputation for two years.

7. It is the further case of petitioner that the respondents while preparing the panel including the names of the private respondents, did not even consider that the sixth respondent who's name is recommended for deputation, does not have the qualifying period of two years on deputation to complete the training / deputation, thereby making the entire selection, a fut