BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:12.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN N.Kamatchi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director of School Education, Chennai-6.

2.The District Educational Officer, Ramanathapuarm.

3.The Block Educational Officer, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.67223/A4/E1/2017 dated 05.02.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to settle all the monetary benefits by promoting the petitioner as Assistant from the date on which is juniors were given promotion with all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Pannerselvam For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader *****

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.02.2018, in and by which, the petitioner's claim for the post of Assistant was rejected.

2.The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition is that, the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant on 20.07.1977 on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, though he was eligible to be appointed as Junior Assistant, since there was no vacancy at the relevant point of time he was appointed as Office Assistant. Hence, the petitioner approached the State Administrtive Tribunal and filed O.A.No. 2025 of 1989. Based upon the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, the respondent had promoted the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant on 26.09.1994. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, though he was eligible for further promotion, the respondents have considered the promotion for the juniors and has rejected such promotion to the petitioner on the ground of absence of getting Bhavani Sagar Training and on account of non- regularization of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant. He would contend that the impugned order is contrary to the rule. Hence, prayed to interfere with the same.

3.Heard Mr.V.Pannerselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4.The main contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since because there was a delay on the part of the respondent in sending the petitioner for Bhavani Sagar Training Institution cannot be put against the petitioner, as there was no fault on her part. If the respondent had given a direction to the petitioner to attend the training, she would have well attended the training. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department and Others V T.Sreenivasan, reported in 2024 SSC Online Mad 9365 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.583 of 2025(The state of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat, Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and Ors., V B.Ilamparithi). Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

5.Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader and would contend that by virtue of the judgment in Government of West Bengal & Ors, V Dr.Amal Satpathi & Ors, (Diary No.43488 of 2023). the petitioner's case cannot be considered as the petitioner having not officiated the position of Assistant cannot seek for notional promotion along with financial benefits. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner voluntarily retired from service during 2009 and sent a representation after a period of six years from her retirement. Therefore, the present case has also hit by the delay and latches. Apart from that, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the delay in regularizing is not the fault of the