IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12-09-2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WP No.39308 of 2016 R.Joseph .. Petitioner vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director, No.14, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer/Personal, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

3.The Superintendent Engineer, Kadamparai Generation Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Minparai – 642 101. .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to effect promotion of the petitioner to the post of Special Grade Foreman with effect from September 2014 with arrears and all other consequent benefits including pensionary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Meenakshi For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO.

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to effect promotion to the petitioner for filling up the post of Special Grade Foreman with effect from September, 2014 along with arrears and all consequential benefits.

2. The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition after a lapse of two years from the date of retirement. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he was due for promotion to the post of Special Grade Foreman and the post was also vacant during the relevant point of time and the respondents have failed to promote the writ petitioner during the relevant point of time when he was in service. On account of the failure on the part of the respondents in filling up the promotional post, the petitioner lost his opportunity for promotion and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition for notional promotion and for revision of his pension and pensionary benefits.

3. Promotion per se cannot be claimed as an absolute right by an employee. Promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with the Rules. Consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee. Thus, in the event of taking an administrative decision by the Competent Authority to fill up the promotional post, the names of all the eligible persons, who all are aspiring to secure promotion, are to be considered in the order of seniority and based on the rules in force. However, mere availability of vacancy or not filling up the post would not be a ground for seeking promotion by employees. Filling up of the post, creation or abolition of the post are the administrative prerogative of the Competent Authority and the employee cannot claim any right in the matter of grant of promotion or decision to fill up the post. Therefore, the eligibility of an employee or vacancy in a particular higher post, would not confer any right nor the employee can claim that he should be promoted in that particular post.

4. If at all the rules of promotion or seniority are violated and if any junior is promoted to the higher post, when the senior employee was working, then alone the senior employee can claim retrospective/notional promotion on par with his junior, but not otherwise.

5. In the present case, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2014. Though the petitioner was qualified for promotion to the post of Special Grade Foreman, he was not promoted on account of certain administrative reasons and even if such administrative decision is not based on any valid reason, then also the employee cannot claim promotion as a matter of right unless any junior is promoted in violation of the seniority or the rules in force.

6. Thus in the present case, no such irregularity or illegality has been established by the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service and till the petitioner was in service, none of his juniors were promoted overlooking the seniority of the writ petitioner.

7. That bein