IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.A.No.3163 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.25728 of 2025

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Administration and Disaster Management Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Administration and Disaster Management Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The District Collector, District Collector Office, Tiruvannamalai - 606 604. ... Appellants -Vs-

J.Jayakumar ... Respondent PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, against the order dated 29.01.2025 in W.P.No.2877 of 2025.

For Appellants : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra Court appeal has been directed against the order dated

29.01.2025 made in W.P.No.2877 of 2025.

2. The respondent who is the writ petitioner had been working as a Deputy Collector / District Manager of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Thiruvallur East, Thiruvallur District, based on his seniority, he would be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer. The crucial date for inclusion in the panel fit for promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer was 01.04.2024. The panel was drawn to that effect on 11.11.2024. However, in the meanwhile, on 06.07.2024, a charge memo has been issued against him. Therefore, based on the charge memo dated 06.07.2024, his name has not been included in the panel drawn on 11.11.2024 by issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.765, Public (Special-A) Department, therefore, the action on the part of the appellants in non-inclusion of the name in the panel fit for promotion to the post of District Revenue officer by taking crucial date as 01.04.2024, the respondent / writ petitioner has approached the writ Court seeking for a writ of mandamus as prayed therein.

3. The writ Court having considered the said factual matrix and also by following the earlier decisions made in this regard has allowed the said writ petition by giving a mandamus through the impugned order dated 29.01.2025.

4. Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that, even though the crucial date was

01.04.2024, the panel was drawn only on 11.11.2024 by issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.765 dated 11.11.2024 and on the date of drawal of the panel, already there has been a charge dated 06.07.2024, the respondent / writ petitioner's name has not been included as he was not entitled to get such inclusion in the panel, therefore, against such non-inclusion, the present writ petition since has been disposed without considering these factual matrix in proper perspective by the writ Court since the mandamus was issued by allowing the said writ petition through the impugned order, it requires interference at hands of the Division Bench, he contended.

5. We have also heard Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner who has brought to our notice that the relevant provision of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 where the procedure under Schedule-XI Part A under Section

7(1), the procedural promotion for preparation of approved list since has been made elaborately, where the Sub-rule 5 reads as follows:

"II.(5) Mere filing of cases in Courts by the appropriate Investigating Authority against a member of service, shall not be a bar for inclusion of his name in the approved list. If specific charges are framed or charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case on the crucial date his name shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list."

6. Relying upon this Rule, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that, if at all, any specific charges are framed or charge sheet has