Eligibility for promotions must align with seniority and qualifications as per established service rules, allowing discretion to authorities in decision-making.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order in Se.Mu.N.K. Order No.6676/C.P./2015, dated 17.03.2017 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of BT Assistant from the panel year 2015-16.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a visually challenged person with 85% visual disability. The petitioner completed Bachelors Degree in Tamil, B.Ed. Course in Teachers Training and also completed Senior Diploma Course in teaching for the blind. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 18.11.2008. The petitioner's next avenue of promotion is to the post of B.T.Assistant for Tamil subject. During 2015-16, there were several vacancies available to the post of B.T.Assistant in the disable category over the entire state of Tamil Nadu. As per the policy decision of the State Government, 50% of the vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the balance 50% by way of promotion from the feeder category of Secondary Grade Teacher.

3. The first respondent prepared a panel of qualified secondary grade teachers eligible for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant on the crucial date. As per the panel, there was a vacancy for the promotional post of B.T. Assistant in Tamil. In the said panel, five eligible Teacher's including the name of the petitioner were found. Out of the 5 teachers, 2 teachers, viz., S.Suresh Kumar and K.R.P.Saravana Manikandan were undergoing punishments for the charges under Sec.17B and hence, they became ineligible and the other Teacher V.Chitra was not qualified, as she did not complete her Senior Diploma for Teaching the Blind. Therefore, one S.Marimuthu and the petitioner were available for consideration under promotional avenue. Due to the seniority of S.Marimuthu, he was promoted as B.T.Assistant and posted in the Government Boys High School, Poonamallee.

4. When the vacancy arose during the panel period 2015-16, the petitioner was the only eligible qualified candidate available for promotion. However, he was not promoted and kept the post vacant and hence, he gave a representation. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in WP.No.24325 of 2016 seeking direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of BT Assistant (Tamil) in accordance with the eligibility panel prepared for the year 2015-16 by considering his representation dated 03.03.2016. This Court, vide its order, dated 23.01.2017 directed the first respondent to dispose of his representation within a period of 6 weeks. The first respondent vide order dated 09.03.2017 rejected his representation without giving any acceptable reason. However, based on the concession of 5 marks given vide G.O.Ms.No.25 School Education (G.E.D.) Department, dated 06.02.2014, which was upheld by Supreme Court, one H.David Rajasingh was appointed to the said vacancy on 23.12.2016.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner was the only eligible teacher available in the panel prepared for the last year, i.e., 2016-17. However, he was not promoted, instead the third respondent was promoted and posted in the vacancy that arose during the said panel period. Had the respondents acted promptly, the petitioner should have been promoted and posted in the place of third respondent as he was the only eligible teacher in the said panel. When the eligible candidate viz., the petitioner was there in the said panel and the post was kept vacant, there is no justification to carry forward the vacancy and fill it up by promoting the third respondent herein. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

6. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein the service particulars of the petitioner and the third respondent were provided, which is extracted below: