BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 18.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

WP(MD)No.13003 of 2019

and

W.M.P(MD)No.9693 of 2019

N.Chidambaram ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner cum

Principal Secretary to Government,

Agricultural Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-09.

2.The Additional Secretary to Government,

Agricultural Department

Fort St. George,

Chennai-09.

3.The Principal secretary / Commissioner, Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business,

Guindy,

Chennai-32.

4.The Secretary,

Madurai Market Committee, Plot No.145A, Anna Nagar,

Madurai-20.

5.The Secretary,

Dindigul Market Committee,

Dindigul Collectorate Campus,

Dindigul-04. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Letter No. 5284/AM1/2016-19 dated 24.07.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide Selection Grade to the petitioner from date of completion of 10 years service ie., 10.10.1989and award Special Grade with effect from 10.10.1999 with all attendant and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.Saravanan for Mr.V.Muthukamatchi For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader *****

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent in letter No.5284/AM1/2016-19 dated 24.07.2018 and to quash the same and subsequently seeking direction against the respondent to provide selection grade.

2.Heard Mr.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.V.Muthukamatchi, for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

3.(a)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he was appointed as Typist in Maduri Market Committee, on 27.11.1973. Thereafter, he was promoted as Supervisor on 10.10.1979 and subsequently, he was retired from service as Superintendant on 30.06.2009. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for a selection grade on completion of 10 years of service as Supervisor qua from 09.10.1989. But, the respondents by referring to G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 23.01.1986, as the petitioner did not officiate the post of senior writer, being the one of the qualification for the promotional post, not granted selection grade.

(b). But the contention of the petitioner is that, the non-posting of the petitioner to the senior writer post is an administrative lapse, and that for the sake of administrative lapse, the petitioner's right to be considered for promotion cannot be denied. The learned counsel would further submit that taking into consideration of the petitioner's subsequent posting as the senior writer, he was awarded with selection grade on 09.06.1992. At this juncture, the learned counsel would invite the attention of the Court about the G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 07.08.1992, and would contend that the requirement of eligibility for the promotional post is not essential and relevant for consideration of selection grade. However without considering such position, the respondent has rejected the petitioner's claim for selection grade.

(c). The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Government has not considered the specific proposal of the fourth respondent and their admission to the effect that his non-posting of the petitioner to the post of senior clerk was an administrative lapse. Inspite of the above admission and proposal the Government has erroneously negatived the proposal. Hence, he prayed the selection grade with effect from 09.10.1989. Hence, he prays to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader by reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order. It is the submission of the petitioner that the reliance of G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 07.08.1992 will have n