IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P. Nos.35414, 35416 and 35421 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.973 of 2025 V.Manikandan Petitioner Vs

1. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

2.The Commissioner of Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

3.The Director Of Tamil Nadu State Health Transport Department Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

4.P.Sarkunam Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1^st respondent in R.No.8014530/E$/S6/2024 dated 15.10.2024 and quash the same and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment as Steno Typist Grade -II in the existing vacancy as on 27.8.2024 with all service and monetary benefits For Petitioner : Mr.T. Ranganathan For Respondents : Mr.K. Tippusulthan Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.M. Kaviveerappan for R4

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the promotion granted to the fourth respondent to the post of Steno Typist Grade–II, vide Order dated 15.10.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent and seeking a consequential direction to promote the petitioner to the said post.

2. Facts of the case :-

a) It is stated that the petitioner was selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Steno Typist Grade–III and was allotted to the first respondent office. The petitioner joined duty on 06.03.2019, his services were regularised with effect from the said date, and his probation was declared on the afternoon of

04.03.2021.

b) It is the contention of the petitioner that when a vacancy arose for the post of Steno Typist Grade–II for the panel year 2024–2025, the 1^st respondent, by letter dated 13.08.2024, called for willingness from eligible Steno Typist Grade–III employees and informed that the said willingness has to be submitted on or before 27.08.2024. Pursuant to which, he submitted his willingness on 21.08.2024 within the stipulated time. However, the 4^th respondent, though senior, submitted her willingness only on 30.08.2024, which was received on 02.09.2024, beyond the date mentioned in the communication. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 15.10.2024, thereby the 4^th respondent was promoted to the post of Steno-Typist Grade – II. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said impugned proceedings dated 15.10.2024 as well sought for consequential directions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in brief about the service particulars of the petitioner and 4^th respondent and argued that though the 4^th respondent is senior to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent had initially opted for another promotional avenue viz., Superintendent and it is the contention that the department had subsequently obtained a letter from her so as to accommodate her in the said post. He further submitted that submission of willingness by the

4^th respondent beyond the prescribed date ought to be treated as relinquishment under Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, and therefore, the 4^th respondent was not entitled to be considered for promotion. In view of the above, the promotion granted to the 4^th respondent is arbitrary and liable to be set aside and prayed for allowing of this writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3, by reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner and the 4^th respondent were appointed as Steno Typist Grade–III on the same date, i.e., 06.03.2019, and their probation was declared on