Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, M.Jothiraman, JJ
K.Maruthamuthu – Appellant
Versus
Director of School Education – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of writ appeal and service history (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no right to retrospective promotion post-retirement (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. appeal dismissed for lack of merit (Para 5) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.
2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Watchman in the Government High School, Aragunipalayam, and was subsequently promoted as an Office Assistant. His services were regularised on 03.08.1993. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2016. According to the petitioner, he was not granted any further promotion during his service, and therefore, he sought a direction for promotion by considering his representation. The said representation was rejected by the second respondent through the impugned order dated 29.12.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.3047 of 2021 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, considering the delay and the fact that the petitioner had already superannuated, dismissed the writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel app
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
