Eligibility for promotion requires meeting specific criteria, and temporary arrangements do not confer rights to promotion.

ORDER

The claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is for promotion to the post of 'Assessor' in the respondent corporation on par with his alleged juniors viz., Mr.Deen Amanullah and Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, who were promoted to the post of 'Assessor' during the panel year 2016-2017.

2. For better appreciation, it is necessary to state the brief and relevant facts.

2.1. The petitioner herein, who was initially appointed as 'Basic Health Worker' on 31.07.1992, was thereafter promoted to the posts of 'Junior Assistant' and 'Assistant' on 20.08.1999 and 30.08.2010 respectively. While he was working as 'Junior Assistant', the petitioner was required to work as 'Tax Collector' on duty arrangement basis through the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner (R&F) No.Va.Thu.Na.Ka.No.A1/45000/2001, dated 29.03.2001. Similarly, while the petitioner was working as 'Assistant' with effect from 30.08.2010, the petitioner was required to work as 'License Inspector' on duty arrangement basis with effect from 21.02.2011. While, he was working as a 'License Inspector', on duty arrangement basis, by virtue of the proceedings bearing Na.E5/3060/2011 dated 21.02.2011, the petitioner started making a claim for promotion to the post of 'Assessor' from the panel year 2013-2014, on the ground that the two persons viz., Mr.Deen Amanullah and Mr.V.Paneer Selvam, who are stated to be juniors to the petitioner were considered for promotion to the post of 'License Inspector'. The said claim of the petitioner was negatived by the respondents by passing the order dated 24.10.2017. It is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

3. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Aswini Devi, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Though it is claimed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the post of 'Assistant' is re-designated as 'License Inspector' and the petitioner was posted as 'License Inspector' with effect from 21.02.2011, the same is found to be factually incorrect as seen from the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.E5/3060/2011 dated 21.02.2011. From the said proceedings, it is amply clear that the petitioner is entitled only to the scale of pay attached to the post of 'Assistant' and he will not be granted the salary or special allowances for the post of 'License Inspector'.

5. No doubt the post of 'Assistant' and 'License Inspector' were treated as equal cadre post, but that does not mean the post of 'Assistant' is re- designated as 'License Inspector'. In order to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of 'Assessor', the petitioner must be working as 'License Inspector', which is the only feeder category for the post of 'Assessor' in respondent Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted on duty arrangement basis to the post of 'License Inspector' on 21.02.2011.

6. Further, in terms of the bye-laws governing the post of 'License Inspector' in the respondent Corporation, the said post can be filled up by four methods viz., (i) from the category of non-graduate Tax Collector, who has collected eight years of service (ii) Graduate Tax Collector, who has completed five years of service (iii) non-graduate Assistant who has completed three years of service and (iv) graduate Assistant in the ratio of 1:1:1:3. There is no dispute in this regard. Thus, the non-graduate Assistants and Graduate Assistants are in the feeder category to the post of 'License Inspector'.

Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the post of 'Assistant' is re- designated as 'License Inspector' cannot be accepted.

7. Further, the petitioner herein is not a Graduate and therefore, he falls under the category-III of the four feeder categories to the post of 'License Inspector'. If that be the case, the petitioner would become eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of 'License Inspector' from the category of non-graduate Assistant only on completion of three years from the date of his promoti