IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J.Agnes Amalavathy Superintendent Office of the Joint Director of Survey and Land Records Chennai 600 005. ...Petitioner Vs.

1.Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director/Commissioner of Survey and Settlement Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3.The Additional Director of Survey and Land Records Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

4.R.Mohan Kumar Superintendent Director of Survey and Settlement Chennai 600 005. ...Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent herein in G.O.(1D) No.317, Revenue (L.S.-4(1) Department dated 06.09.2013 and the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to Order Na.Ka.NGA-1 / 17683/2012 (L.S) dated 24.07.2012 and quash the same and to place the Petitioner over and above on par with her immediate junior in the lines of Na.Ka.R2/4074/2007-1 (L.S.) dated 29.09.2011 issued by the 2^nd respondent herein and the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.R2/4074/2007 (L.S.) dated 13.10.2011 and to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place, over and above her immediate junior in the cadre of Assistant as well as Superintendent and to accordingly refix the pay of the petitioner on par with her immediate junior and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits, including revision of retirement and pensionary benefits. (PRAYER AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 In WMP.6699/2025 in WP.24450/2018)

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan for R1 to R3 Government Advocate R4-Served-No appearance

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the first respondent in G.O.(1D) No.317, Revenue (L.S.-4(1)) Department. By the said order, the petitioner’s representation seeking inclusion of her name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 1988 and for regularisation of her services in the said category with effect from 15.09.1988 came to be rejected.

2. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Junior Assistant on 01.02.1985, and her services in the said post were regularised on 11.11.1986. As the petitioner had not completed the Survey Training and completed the same only on 21.04.1988, her name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant only in the year 1989. The petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2019 while serving as Superintendent.

3. The first respondent, following the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32221 of 2006, included the names of three individuals, including one Mr. K.M.Mohankumar, in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 1988. Claiming parity, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that Mr. K.M.Mohankumar, who was admittedly junior to her and similarly situated, had been granted the benefit of inclusion in the panel for the year 1988. However, the said representation came to be rejected by the impugned order, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

4. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Mr.K.M.

Mohankumar, though junior to the petitioner, had also not completed the Survey Training as on the crucial date. Despite the same, his name was included in the panel for the year 1988. Therefore, denial of a similar benefit to the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, Mr.P.Ganesan, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner had not completed the requisite Survey Training as on the crucial date, namely 15.03.1988, and therefore her name was rightly not included in the panel for the year 1988. He further submitted that only after completion of the Survey Training was h