Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20855
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J
D.Bhuvaneswari – Appellant
Versus
The Syndicate of Annamalai University – Respondent
Writ Petition | W.P. Nos. 38753 of 2025 and 7232 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.S. Palaniswamy
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Nambi Arooran for M/s.Ajmal Associates
Promotions conditional upon passing departmental tests are valid if qualifications are met subsequently; thus invalidating show cause notices issued prior.
Headnote:The statute relevant to this case includes the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts indicate that the petitioner, promoted subject to passing an Accounts Test, has now passed the test after an impugned show cause notice. The court determined that the basis for the notice was no longer valid since the petitioner has achieved the required qualification. The court framed the issue of whether the promotion conditions were satisfied and concluded that the issuance of the notice was unwarranted post-qualification, leading to the petitioner being permitted to retain her promotion and ensuring her terminal benefits are settled.
Result: The impugned notice is declared infructuous, and necessary updates with respect to the petitioner's passing of the test are to be recorded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges notice regarding failed test. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments point to test passing after decision and age relaxation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondents argue for adherence to test conditions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court validates qualifications achieved after notice issuance. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. writ petition disposed of with specific directives. (Para 13) |
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Office Memorandum No.C1- 1/03359/2024 dated 03.08.2024, to quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to record the petitioner’s pass in the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part–I Examination published in the e-Bulletin dated 07.04.2025 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in her service register.
2. It is the case of the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on
19.10.1994 and was subsequently promoted as Assistant in 2001 and Superintendent in 2008, subject to the condition that she should pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part–I within the stipulated time, failing which her increments would be withheld. It is further stated that she did not pass the Accounts Test within the prescribed period. While so, the impugned show cause notice dated 03.08.2024 was issued proposing to cancel her promotions and refix her pay on the ground of non-passing of the Accounts Test. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the pendency of the impugned notice, she appeared for the test and successfully passed the same in April 2025 and the result was published on 07.04.2025. Thereafter, she submitted a representation seeking recording of the said qualification in her service register, but the same has not been considered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the promotions in the years 2001 and 2008 were subject to passing of the Accounts Test, the petitioner has now cleared the test in April 2025. Hence, the very basis for the show cause notice no longer survives.
4. He drew the attention of this Court to Government Orders viz., G.O.Ms.No.1120 (Human Resources Development (S) Department dated 30.10.1984 and G.O.Ms.No.41 (Human Resources Development (S) Department dated 09.05.2023 granting relaxation from passing departmental tests to Government servants who have crossed 55 years of age. The petitioner, being aged about 59 years and nearing superannuation on 30.05.2026, is entitled to such relaxation.
5. Learned counsel would further contended that at the time of granting promotions, though the condition regarding passing of the test was incorporated, the petitioner was allowed to continue in the promotional posts for several years and discharged higher responsibilities. No monetary benefits beyond the scale attached to the post were irregularly drawn. He also submitted that the petitioner is willing to forego any increments, if necessary, but seeks protection of the promotional posts already enjoyed and settlement of terminal benefits accordingly.
6. Hence, it is the strong submission of the learned counsel that issuance of the show cause notice to the petitioner that too at the verge of retirement, proposing reversion to the original post, is arbitrary and liable to be interfered with.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the promotions granted to the petitioner in the years 2001 and 2008 were purely conditional, subject to passing of the Accounts Test within the prescribed time, whereas the petitioner has not satisfied the said conditions.
8. More particularly, by relying paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, he vehemently contended that as per the Syndicate Resolutions, particularly Resolution No.54 dated 18.06.2014 and subsequent resolutions, promotions granted without passing the mandatory Accounts Test after 30.06.2010 were treated as irr
