BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.A(MD)No.996 of 2021 G.Sundarraj ... Appellant /

Petitioner Vs.

1.The Divisional Engineer, State Highways Department, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, State Highways Department, (Construction and Maintenance), Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

3.R.Suresh

4.G.Pandian ... Respondents /

Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court dated 09.02.2021 in W.P(MD)No.6534 of

2012.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2 Mr.J.Anandkumar for R.3 & R.4 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2.This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P(MD)No.6534 of 2012 filed by the appellant herein. The appellant herein as well as the private respondents herein (respondents 3 and 4) joined the State Highways Department as Gang Mazdoors pursuant to the appointment order dated 14.11.1997. It is not in dispute that the writ appellant was senior to the private respondents herein in the post of Gang Mazdoor. The next promotional post is that of Road Inspector Grade - II. The private respondents herein were promoted to the said post vide proceedings dated 27.04.2012 issued by the Divisional Engineer, State Highways Department, Ramanathapuram. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed W.P(MD)No.6534 of 2012.

3.The grievance of the appellant is that admittedly when he was senior to the private respondents, he could not have been overlooked. However, the learned single Judge vide order dated 90.02.2021 rejected the appellant's prayer in the following terms:

“6. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and the private respondents were appointed as Gang Mazdoor in the year 1997 and the next level of promotion is Road Inspector Grade – II and the minimum qualification for the promotional post is 10th Standard pass. The private respondents have passed the 10th Standard in the month of October 1994 and October 1995 respectively. Therefore, their names were included in the panel for the year 2008. Subsequently, the third respondent has issued a charge memo against the private respondents as if they suppressed the factum of 10th Standard pass, at the time of joining duty and this Court has quashed the charge memo in W.P. (MD).Nos.14193 and 14194 of 2011, dated 29.02.2012. Therefore, the private respondents were given promotion. Whereas, the name of the petitioner was found in the panel for the year 2012 and he passed the 10th Standard only in the year 2008. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent as no case has been made out by the petitioner to substantiate his grievance. Accordingly, this Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

Assailing the said approach adopted by the learned single Judge, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew our attention to the Proviso to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, which was in force during the relevant point of time. According to the learned counsel, even though the names of the private respondents have been included in the promotion panel for the post of Road Inspector Grade - II in the year 2008, the fact remains that they were not appointed. Therefore, the private respondents could have been considered for promotion only along with the writ appellant, especially when the writ appellant was admittedly senior.

5.The writ appellant was not considered for inclusion in the promotion panel in the year 2008 only because he did not possess the requisite educational qualification i.e., pass in 10th standard. Suc