SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
A.Kannan – Petitioner 
Versus 
The Secretary To Government Housing & Urban Development Dept. – Respondent 
W.P. NO. 39530 OF 2024, W.P. NOS.960, 966 & 2709 OF 2025, W.M.P. NOS. 42812 & 42813 OF 2024, W.M.P. NOS. 1172, 1176, 1183, 1188, 3055 & 3056 OF 2025
Decided On : 30-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. AL.Gandhimathi, SC, For M/s. L.Palanimuthu, Mr. Puhaz Gandhi
For the Respondent: Mr. J.Ravindran, Aag, Assisted By Mr.V.Logesh For Tnhb
Mr. K.Surendran, Agp For State Of Tn Mr.S.A.Syed Shu Habib

Amendments to service regulations cannot be given retrospective effect if they infringe upon accrued rights; such actions are arbitrary and violate principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Service Regulations, G.O. (Ms.) No.204 dated 14.11.2024 - Amendment regarding promotion eligibility - Exclusion of surveyors from promotion to Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer deemed arbitrary and violative of legal principles. (Paras 1-33)

(B) Employment Law - No retrospective effect for amendments impacting rights accrued prior to enactment - Amendment invalid against established principles of justice. (Paras 23-26)

(C) Procedural Fairness - Requirement for consideration of eligible petitioners for promotion based on existing regulations at the time of the panel formation. (Paras 30-33)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged their exclusion from the promotion panel for Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer due to a retrospective amendment, arguing their rights and eligibility based on prior regulations.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the retrospective amendment was invalid, and the exclusion of surveyors contradicted the existing regulations.

Issues: Whether the retrospective application of the amendment violated the petitioners' promotion rights and the legality of their exclusion from the promotion panel.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amendment could not apply retrospectively as it infringed upon pre-existing rights; thus, the petitioners' eligibility to be included in the promotion panel must be upheld.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; the impugned orders quashed with directions for reconsideration for promotion.

Table of Content
1. retrospective effect of amendments to service regulations. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10)
2. eligibility for promotion based on existing qualifications. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 32)
3. arguments against arbitrary exclusion from promotion. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. court's analysis on promotion eligibility per regulations. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33)
5. outcome of the writ petition and subsequent orders. (Para 34)

ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

Aggrieved by the retrospectivity given to the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Service Regulations , more particularly in the State Housing Board Engineering Officer’s Service vide G.O. (Ms.) No.204, Housing & Urban Development (HBI (1)) Dept., dated 14.11.2024, in and by which the feeder category of Surveyors were excluded from being considered for the next higher post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer and the consequential provisional list having been prepared excluding the Surveyors from being considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners.

2. W.M.P. Nos.42811/2024 and 3053/2025 have been filed to permit the petitioners therein to join together and file a single writ petition. Considering the averments and also the reasons adduced to file a single writ petition and being satisfied with the same, the aforesaid petitions are allowed subject to the petitioners paying separate court fee, if not already paid. However, if the petitioners fail to pay separate court fee, the order passed hereunder would enure only to the benefit of the first petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are employed as Surveyors under the 2nd respondent. As per the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Regula short ‘the Regulation’), which stood then, the next avenue of promotion to the petitioners is as Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer and the Regulation provides for two modes of selection, viz., (i) direct recruitment and (ii) by way of promotion/transfer of service. As far as Assistant Engineer is concerned, the recruitment is by way of promotion, wherein the Regulation states “promotion from other categories of service with the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment”. For direct recruitment, the requisite qualification is possession of degree in Engineering of any University recognized by the State Government for the purpose of any other equivalent qualification. It is the averment of the petitioners that a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions would make it clear that those who have a degree in engineering are eligible/entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer by way of transfer of service.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioners that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/2nd respondent (for short ‘the Board’) issued a provisional seniority list of surveyors for the panel year 2022-2023 for promotion to the post of Head Surveyor vide proceedings dated 23.12.2022. The petitioners, who were qualified for consideration to the higher feeder post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer, filed their objections pointing out their eligibility for consideration to the higher promotional post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer as per the Regulations and also expressed their willingness for the said post.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioners that without considering the said objections, the Board issued a final list for the post of Head Surveyor, more particularly pointing out that no objections had been received. It is the further averment of the petitioners that the Board while withdrew the earlier list published on 18.3.2022, published a fresh list excluding the surveyors from consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer and considered only the Technical Assistants.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioners that the exclusion of surv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top