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) 1690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
 V. Kalaiarasi, W/o. Khurushev – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Personal and Administrative Reforms (H2) Department – Respondent
WP Nos.25124 of 2016 & 13375 of 2017 and WMP.No.14404 of 2017
Decided On : 27-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Muthappan.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader.

The court held that educational qualifications for promotions in public services must strictly adhere to G.O.107, invalidating prior recognitions of foundational courses when petitioners failed to challenge this government order.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Qualifications for promotion in public services - Petitioners challenged exclusion from promotion panels on grounds of educational qualifications not meeting prescribed standards - Court affirmed that qualifications obtained through Open Universities must adhere to G.O.107 dated 18.08.2009, rejecting prior recognition of foundational courses - Petitioners failed to challenge G.O.107, rendering their claims unviable. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 17, 19)

(B) Government Orders - Applicability of G.O.107, dated 18.08.2009 - The Government Order mandates that qualifications follow a 10+2+3 pattern for promotions, which the petitioners did not satisfy - Court upheld that the regulations effective during promotion consideration apply decisively to the case. (Paras 11, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
Two writ petitions concerning non-inclusion of petitioners in promotion panels. Petitioner A argued her foundational course equated to higher secondary qualification, while Petitioner B contended the same for her degree obtained post-foundational course. Both petitioners claimed qualifications were valid based on earlier government orders which were superseded by G.O.107.

Findings of Court:
Court dismissed petitions asserting that both petitioners did not possess qualifications in accordance with amendments as per G.O.107, applicable at the time of promotion considerations.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners obtained their educational qualifications per the 10+2+3 pattern necessary for promotion as stipulated in G.O.107.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the G.O.107 mandated qualifications for promotions should be adhered to strictly, and since the petitioners had not challenged G.O.107's validity, their claims were untenable.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek promotions based on claims. (Para 1 , 2)
2. eligibility for promotions based on qualifications. (Para 3)
3. qualification requirements under g.o.107 discussed. (Para 5 , 6)
4. discussion on equivalency of qualifications. (Para 10 , 13 , 14 , 17)
5. legal basis for dismissal of petitions. (Para 11)
6. government orders regarding qualifications cited. (Para 12)
7. ruling on qualifications and previous case orders. (Para 15)
8. final dismissal of the writ petitions. (Para 19)

COMMON ORDER :

N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

WP No.25124 of 2016 has been filed to call for the records relating to the 1st respondent’s proceedings in G.O.(4D) No.67 P & AR (H2) Department dated 04.11.2013 confirming the earlier proceedings in Order No.16804/H2/13-1 dated 06.06.2013 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to include the petitioner’s name in the panel of Personal Clerks fit for promotion for the post of Senior Personal Clerks for the year 2012-2013 between Serial Nos.45 and 46 i.e., after her immediate senior and before her immediate junior and promote her as Senior Personal Clerk for the year 2012-2013 and grant her all service and monetary benefits.

2.WP No.13375 of 2017 has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to include the petitioner’s name in the panel of Section Officers fit for promotion for the post of Under Secretary for the year 2017-2018 between serial Nos.9 and 10 i.e. after her immediate senior and before her immediate junior in the panel issued in G.O.(D) No.89 P & AR (Q) Department dated 05.05.2017 and promote her as Under Secretary for the year 2017-2018 and grant her all service and monetary benefits.

3.WP No.25124 of 2016:

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Personal Clerk in the Home department on 05.07.2007 through TNPSC recruitment. The petitioner had passed 10th Standard in 1995 and completed two year Foundation Course in Annamalai University in the year 1997, which is equivalent to Higher Secondary as per G.O.Ms.No.219, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.03.1968 (hereinafter referred to as G.O.No.219, dated 30.03.1968). The petitioner had completed BBA degree in 2001 through distance education course in Annamalai University. Thereafter, she passed M.Com in 2003 and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications in 2005. She also obtained technical qualifications in Typewriting Tamil & English (Higher grade) and Shorthand Tamil & English (Higher grade) between 1997 and 2001. The qualification for the post of Personal Clerk is Bachelor’s Degree and pass in the Government Technical Examination in Typewriting Tamil & English (Higher Grade). She completed probation on 17.07.2009 and her service was regularized with effect from 04.07.2007.

3.1.The petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Personal Clerk for the year 2012 – 2013. The first respondent issued proceedings dated 25.04.2013 consisting of 58 eligible Personal Clerks, fit for promotion. The petitioner’s name was not in the list, however, her juniors’ names included. She submitted a representation dated 29.04.2013, requesting inclusion of her name between her immediate senior and junior, which was rejected by the 1st respondent by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.107 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department dated 18.08.2009 (hereinafter referred to as G.O.107, dated 18.08.2009), on the ground that her two year Foundation Course cannot be considered equivalent to +2.

3.2.She preferred an appeal on 23.08.2013 by relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1372 of 2013 dated 12.07.2013. However, the appeal was rejected on 04.11.2013 vide G.O.(4D) No.67 P & AR (H2) Department, dated 04.11.2013. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the present writ petition.

4.1.The first respondent filed a counter affidavit and contended that as per the Special Rules, for getting promotion to the post of Senior Personal Clerk for the year 2012 - 2013, a Bachelor’s Degree is required. A

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