Eligibility for promotion cannot be denied due to administrative delays; notional promotions can impact pensionary benefits.

ORDER :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents, and perused the records.

2. The petitioner, by the present writ petition, has challenged the proceedings dated 06.07.2018 issued by the first respondent, whereby his request for granting promotion to the post of Joint Director (Engineering) in category - 1 of the Tamil Nadu Industries Service has been rejected.

3. The petitioner contended that he was appointed as Assistant Director (Technical) on 18.08.1999 and thereafter promoted as Deputy Director on 29.11.2004. The petitioner further contended that on completion of 10 years of service as Deputy Director, he became eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director; that the Government approved the estimate of vacancies for the post of Joint Director (Engineering), General Manager, Grade-I in Category – I of the Tamil Nadu Industries Service for the year 2013-2014, to be three posts vide G.O.Ms.No.65 dated 13.11.2013; and that the respondents, after considering his eligibility, issued G.O.(4D)No.16, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises [E1(1)] Department dated 08.05.2014, including his name as eligible for promotion in the panel.

4. The petitioner further contended that although his name was included in the list of candidates for promotion to the post of Joint Director, a charge memo dated 24.06.2014 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to him, resulting in he being award of a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, vide order dated 19.09.2014; and that due to the punishment his promotion was deferred.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after completion of one year punishment period, he became eligible for being considered for promotion with effect from 19.09.2015; that the respondents, however, with an intention to deny him such promotion, declared the panel years 2014- 2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 as “NIL” panel years; and that though the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for the year 2017-2018, the respondents rejected his claim on the ground that the panel was approved only after the petitioner had attained the age of Superannuation, thereby rendering him ineligible for promotion or for receiving the benefits attached to such a post.

6. The petitioner further contended that in the panel year 2017-2018, the respondents considered 11 vacancies, on account of previous 3 years being declared as “NIL” years; that despite the existence of vacancies, in the respective years, the action of respondents declaring “NIL” panel years is contrary to Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Condition of Service) Act, 2016.

7. The petitioner further contended that since, he had been awarded punishment under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the same cannot be used as a ground to deny him promotion to the post of Joint Director; and that the punishment is not a bar to promotion as per the existing guidelines. The petitioner also contended that while considering the name of one K.Mahalingam under G.O. (4D)No.16 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises [E1(1)] Department dated 08.05.2014 the respondent claimed issuance of charge memo is not a bar for inclusion of name in the panel, and that the respondents had applied different yardstick for different individuals, to suit their convenience, a