Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
D.Rajappa – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition | W.P.No.1033 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Dharani
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Rajesh, Government Advocate
Claims for promotion must be made in a timely manner; substantial delays may result in dismissal without consideration of merit.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Claim for promotion to the post of Forester - Petitioner initially appointed as Field Conductor - Subsequently absorbed into Forest Department - Petition dismissed due to delay in making the claim for promotion. (Paras 3, 4, 9)
(B) Delay and Laches - The claim of the petitioner was made over five years post-retirement and for a panel year at least a decade prior; therefore, the claim was not entertained by the court as it suffered from significant delay without justification. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
Claimant challenged the rejection of his claim for promotion that was made after considerable delay post-retirement. Previous decisions directed the promotion of similarly situated individuals.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delay in asserting his promotion claim led to a dismissal based on the absence of merit.
Issues: The principal issue addressed was the significant delay and the appropriateness of the promotion claim in light of existing rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely claims for promotion and the implications of inordinate delay, ultimately ruling that the petitioner’s late submission undermined his position.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant's background and basis for promotion. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding eligibility for promotion. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's review of delay and justification. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final ruling based on claims delay. (Para 9) |
| 5. dismissing of the writ petition. (Para 10) |
O R D E R
The petitioner herein, who was initially appointed as a 'Field Conductor' in the Cinchona Department on 01.11.1997, was subsequently absorbed in the Forest Department upon the amalgamation of the Cinchona Department in the Forest Department, by virtue of the orders issued in G.O (Ms) No.221, Environment and Forest Department, dated 03.04.1990, and G.O (Ms) No.275, Environment and Forest Department (FR-I) dated 06.11.1996, in the post of 'Forest Guard'. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2004. While so, some of the persons who were similarly appointed as 'Field Conductors' in the Cinchona Department and amalgamated in the Forest Department in the cadre of 'Forest Guard' made a claim for fixation of their seniority at the appropriate place in the cadre of 'Forest Guard' in the Forest Department by filing O.A.Nos.1423 and 8271 of 1998 and the said original applications were disposed of by the then Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 29.11.2001, directing the respondents therein to fix the interse seniority of the petitioners therein by including their names in the seniority list and also to give the benefit of notional promotion after fixation of the seniority, in case if any of the juniors of the petitioners therein were promoted to the post of 'Forest Officer'.
1.2. It was thereafter, one of the applicants in the said original applications filed W.P.No.27907 of 2004 before this court seeking implementation of the order dated 29.11.2001, passed in the above referred two original applications. Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 08.10.2004, directing implementation of the order dated 29.11.2001 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal. It was thereafter, on filing of Contempt Petition No.365 of 2005, the second respondent herein issued proceedings bearing AB1/21751/2008-02 dated 28.11.2008, fixing the seniority of the petitioners who are parties to the original applications before the tribunal and also granting them the benefit of notional promotion as 'Forester'.
1.3. It was thereafter, the petitioner started making a claim for fixation of seniority and for promotion to the post of 'Forester' contending that some of the juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the post of 'Forester' on notional basis by submitting a representation dated 09.01.2009. The said representation was rejected by the second respondent by passing an order dated 03.05.2011, stating that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of 'Forester' for the panel year 1999-2000 was not considered as nil panel was prepared during the said panel year and also explaining that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for the subsequent panel years prior to the date of his retirement from service as the petitioner was undergoing punishment imposed through proceedings bearing No.1424/2001/E2 dated 25.05.2002.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the punishment of 'stoppage of increment for a period of two years' imposed through proceedings dated 23.05.2002, on the petitioner was modified as 'stoppage of increment for a period of one year' on the appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore, the punishment that was imposed on the petitioner came to an end on 30.06.2003 and therefore, the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of 'Forester' for the panel year 2003-2004, as the crucial date for the panel year 2003-2004 is 15.08.2003. He also further contended that the action of the respondents in preparing a 'nil panel' for the year 1999-2000 is also not legal as the same was prepared at the instance of a
