BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.A.(MD)No.874 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.7191 of 2022 1.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamilnadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai - 600 108.

2. The Assistant Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Siluvathur Road, Dindigul. ... Appellants Vs.

1.N.Anbarasan

2.The Secretary to Government, Tamilnadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.15967 of 2014 dated 24.02.2022 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.C.Rajakumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Addl. Government Pleader for R2.

Mr.J.Lawrance for R1

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The Khadi Board has filed this intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.15967 of 2014 filed by the first respondent herein.

3.The first respondent / writ petitioner joined the Khadi Board as Beefieldman in the year 1988. He was thereafter promoted as Apiarist. During the relevant time, there was shortage of staff in the soap making section. Since the writ petitioner was possessing B.SC. Chemistry qualification, he was deputed as Technician (Soap Chemist). He worked as Technician (Soap Chemist) from 10.06.2002 to October, 2022. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would claim that citing his deputation and qualification, cosmetic license was also obtained.

4.The only demand made by the writ petitioner is that he should be paid salary that is attached to the post of Technician (Soap Chemist). Since his request was rejected, the aforesaid writ petition came to be filed. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.02.2022 disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:-

“6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as Beefield man and then promoted as Apiarist Grade- III. The petitioner was granted Selection Grade Apiarist Grade- III from 13.05.2003 onwards. The petitioner was also granted Special Grade on 13.05.2013. The contention of the petitioner is since he has been deputed to Soap Chemist post in Vedapatti Unit, he is entitled to be regularized in Soap Chemist post based on his educational qualification. The petitioner was granted Selection Grade in the year 2003, which means without promotion he was working in the same post for more than ten years. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted Special Grade on 13.05.2013. The petitioner either can claim promotion to Soap Chemist post or he can claim Selection Grade and Special Grade. Since the Selection Grade and Special Grade are granted to the petitioner, he is not entitled to promotion to the Soap Chemist post. The selection grade is granted if the employee is stagnating in the same post without any promotion for 10 years and special grade is granted if the employee is stagnating in the same post without any promotion for 20 years.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim promotion.

7. The claim arises because the petitioner was deputed to Soap Chemist post. According to the respondents, if the claim is accepted then the entire Apiarist will claim for the same relief and for the Administration would be difficult. But the petitioner contented that there is no other Apiarist in the Khadi Unit with the qualification, therefore, this will not affect the Administration. This contention cannot be agreed because if the Rule permits only then, it can be considered. The petitioner relied on proviso stating that the proviso is allowed, if there is any eligible persons in the category for which the selection has made and the same shall be considered.

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the eligible candidate in the Apiarist category can be considered, only if there is any panel pr