Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Jothiraman, J. Nisha Banu, JJ
Union Of India Represented by Government of Puducherry, Chief secretariat, Puducherry 605 001 – Appellant
Versus
M.Issaivanan S/O. (Late) K.Maduraimuthu, No.14, Mariamman Koil Street, Kalathumadu, Vinobanagar, Pondicherry 605 008 – Respondent
W.A.Nos.2393, 2394 & 2395 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader (Puducherry)
For R1 in all cases: Mr.D.Sreenivasan

Burden of proof lies on the claimant; deviations from established seniority and promotion rules must be rectified in adherence to merit and seniority principles.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 134 and 135 - The principle of burden of proof - It is incumbent upon the person who asserts a fact to prove it. The claim for retrospective promotions was negated as per the previous decisions, affirming that factual assertions without adequate proof cannot alter established seniority rankings. (Paras 10-12)

(B) Recruitment and Promotion Rules - Clarification concerning status and seniority - Government authorities deviating from the norms established in previous promotions led to unfair results. The importance of adherence to the principle of seniority and merit in recruitment was emphasized to ensure fair promotion processes. (Paras 15-16)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner served various roles in Pondicherry Engineering College from 1984 and sought retrospective promotions based on perceived irregularities in the promotion process. The dispute stems from comparisons with junior staff receiving promotions prior to him.

Findings of Court:
The common order was found erroneous, reinforcing the legitimacy of following established recruitment procedures and seniority guidelines for promotional matters within the institution.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the writ petitioner's claims for earlier promotions were justified under existing promotion criteria and if deviations adversely impacted his ranking.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that prior promotions were given without adherence to seniority principles, necessitating correction of promotion rankings in compliance with established regulations.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. review of prior common orders for validity in promotion cases. (Para 1 , 5 , 12 , 16)
2. detailing the employment and promotion history of the writ petitioner. (Para 2 , 10)
3. arguments regarding merit and seniority in promotion disputes. (Para 6 , 8)

JUDGMENT

(Made by M.Jothiraman J.)

Intra-court appeals have been preferred challenging the common order dated 05.10.2021 passed in W.P.Nos.33089 of 2013, 28484 & 33301 of 2014.

2. The writ petitioner viz. Issaivanan was originally engaged as a daily rated NMR in Pondicherry Engineering College with effect from 01.11.1984 and he was regularized as Helper with effect from 01.08.1987 and promoted as Attender with effect from 14.02.1994. Thereafter, he was promoted as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with effect from 23.05.1996 and Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with effect from 31.10.2001 and Assistant with effect from 23.02.2006.

3. The writ petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petitions for the following reliefs:

W.P.No.33089 of 2013:

“for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to Lr.No.PEC/Estt./E7/2013/2608 dated 06.08.2013 issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same and further direct the 4th respondent to pay the arrears for the period from 16.02.2006 to 08.12.2009 and to issue revised order promoting the petitioner with effect from 16.02.2006 instead of 23.02.2006 based on the decision of the DPC meeting held on 09.12.2009.”

W.P.No.28484 of 2014:

“for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to act on the counter affidavit dated 06.10.2010 (Para 17(b) and (c)] filed by them in WP No.38340/2006.”

W.P.No.33301 of 2014:

“for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the seniority list dated 21.02.2011 in Lr.No.PEC/Estt/E4/Seniority/2010/671.”

4. The writ petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.38340 of 2006 to promote him as UDC retrospectively with effect from 06.07.2000. According to the writ petitioner, he was not given retrospective promotion as LDC with effect from 25.06.1993 and UDC with effect from 23.05.2001. Therefore, he has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.28484 of 2014 for implementation of promotion as per the counter affidavit dated 06.10.2020 filed in W.P.No.38340 of 2006.

5. This Court, by a common order dated 05.10.2021, has observed as follows:

“20.From a simple perusal of the seniority list dated 21.02.2011, it is seen that even though the petitioner was promoted with effect from 23.02.2006, his date of promotion was shown as 09.12.2009. Had he been promoted notionally with effect from 16.02.2006, he would not have been ranked below the said G.Murugesan and would have been filled at seventh roster point in the roster of seniority. As per the roster point, seventh point goes to Scheduled Caste category. In that event, the petitioner by following the rule of reservation would have got promotion earlier than G.Murugesan.

21.Therefore, considering the totality of the circumstances and the failure on the part of the respondents and also the considering the factum that inasmuch as the Government has ignored the length of service of the candidates and departed from the principle of seniority of candidates who served in the same cadre while drawing up of the list of eligible candidates, and that it has committed a mistake that needs to be corrected, a direction is given to the official respondents to ratify the mistakes and accord promotion to the petitioner taking into account his date of promotion as Attender as 01.08.1987 and LDC with effect from 25.06.1993 and further promotions on par with his juniors and revise the seniority at all levels on par with his immediate junior G.Murugesan and consequently, promote him on par with his junior G.Murugesan and disburse all other attendant and monetary benefits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, these writ appeals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document