2026:MHC:356 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WP No. 34125 of 2016 AND WMP NOS.29445 & 29446 OF 2016

1. N.V.Krishnaveni Senior Typist, Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3.

3.The Secretary to Government Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

Respondent(s)

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent issued in Letter No.10985/H2/2015-1, P &

AR Department, dated 21.05.2015 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent to restore the seniority of the petitioner in the post of Typist as per the seniority assigned by the 2^nd respondent in the selection list communicated in Letter No.4265/PSD-A/2009 dated 17.7.2009 above Thiru.D.Venkatesan (Seniority No.151) and consequently consider her name in the panel for the post of Senior Typist prepared for the year 2012-13 with all monetary benefits, within a reasonable period which may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Ranganathan For Respondent(s): Mr.UM.Ravichandran Special Govt. Pleader for R1&R3 Mr.B.Vijay, SC For TNPSC For R2 ********

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.05.2015, wherein the petitioner’s request for promotion was rejected.

2.Heard Mr.T.Ranganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.U.M.Ravichandiran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 3 and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

2^nd respondent.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Department during 2007 and has been working as a Typist continuously. In the meanwhile, she has participated in TNPSC recruitment and got selected for the post of Typist vide order dated 17.07.2009, however, by unilateral decision her community certificate was referred for verification by the High Level Committee. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that even in the year 2007, she was appointed in the post of Typist under the Schedule Tribe category, the question of sending her community certificate again for verification to the High Level Committee does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on account of such motivated reference in forwarding the community certificate to the High Level Committee and issuing appointment order belatedly, the respondent illegally delayed the promotional prospect of the petitioner. However, the first respondent, without taking into consideration of all these aspects have rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would vehemently contend that though the petitioner was selected during 2009, she was issued with an appointment order only during January 2012 and that the contention of the petitioner that she was appointed during 2007 was in temporary post and was not in sanctioned post. Furthermore, for a person to be promoted to the post of Senior Typist, she/he ought to have been in probation for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. In the case in hand, the petitioner was appointed only during 2009, whereas the crucial date for promotion for Senior Typist was 01.08.2012 and as on the crucial date, the petitioner did not complete the probation. Therefore, she was not eligible for consideration. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the temporary appointment during 2007 cannot be counted for probation, as it was not in the sanctioned