W.P.No.36604 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

W.P.No.36604 of 2016

G. Jayauddin

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,

Rep. by its Chairman,

144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

2.The Chief Engineer/(Personnel)

TANGEDCO Ltd,

144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the entire

records connected with the impugned order of the second respondent in

Letter No.027298/233/G30/G301/2016-2 dated 30.05.2016 and quash the

same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant

Accounts Officer notionally w.e.f. 31.03.2009, by extending the benefit of

the order passed in W.P.No.28673 of 2010 dated 14.03.2012 and board

proceedings in (per) CMD. TANGEDCO Proceedings No.142 dated

2.12.2013 and revise the scale of pay of the petitioner and settle all the

consequential terminal pensionary benefits to him.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.36604 of 2016

For Petitioner

:

Mr.S.N. Ravichandran

For Respondents

:

Mr.K. Rajkumar

ORDER

The petitioner herein who had retired from the post of Accounts

Supervisor on 31.03.2009, seeks for notional promotion to the post of

Assistant Accounts Officer, based on the promotional panel which was

approved on 15.05.2009. The claim is based on the case of his junior

namely P. Chellan who was granted notional promotion through orders of

this Court dated 14.03.2012 passed in WP.No.28673 of 2010. It is stated

that the orders passed in the Writ Petition came to be challenged by the

respondents in W.A.No.510 of 2013, which came to be dismissed on

09.04.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner's junior was granted notional

promotion by the Board's proceedings dated 02.12.2013.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

petitioner's junior had retired from service on 31.05.2009 and since the

panel was approved even prior to his retirement, the petitioner cannot seek

for notional promotion in comparison with the case of P. Chellan since the

petitioner had already retired from service on 31.03.2009.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.36604 of 2016

3. It is a settled proposition of law that mere inclusion of the name of

the Government servant will not give him a right to seek for promotion,

particularly after his retirement. In the case of 'Union of India & others

Vs. N.R. Banerjee & others' reported in '(1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases

287', the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance on its Constitution

Bench decision, as well as other decisions and held that mere inclusion of

one's name in the promotional panel list will not confer any right of

appointment and does not amount to selection or creation of a vested right

to appointment. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

.....

“Considered from that perspective, the question

arises: whether the view taken by the Tribunal is justified in

law? It is true that filling up of the posts are for clear or

anticipated vacancies arising in the year. It is settled law

that mere inclusion of one’s name in the list does not confer

any right in him/her to appointment. It is not incumbent that

all posts may be filled up. But the authority must act

reasonably, fairly and in public interest and omission thereof

should not be arbitrary. In Shankarasan Dash v. Union of

India [(1991) 2 SCR 567], the Constitution Bench had held

that inclusion of the name of a candidate in a merit list does

not confer any right to be selected unless the relevant

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.36604 of 2016

recruitment rules so indicate. The State is under no legal

duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies even thought he

State acts in arbitrar