Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 83649
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Dhandapani, N. Dilip Kumar, JJ
M. Rajamani – Appellant
Versus
Director of School Education – Respondent
W.A.(MD)No.1540 of 2021|C.M.P.(MD)No.6346 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Anwar Sameem
For the Respondents: J. Saranya
Notional promotion cannot be granted if the employee claiming seniority is found to be junior to the other employee in the feeder category based on the actual dates of promotion to that category.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Promotion - Seniority in Feeder Category - A claim for notional promotion based on the promotion of another employee is unsustainable if the service records demonstrate that the other employee was promoted to the feeder category prior to the claimant. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to notional promotion to the post of Superintendent based on the promotion of Sivasankaran.
PRAYER:
Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent Act, praying to set aside the order dated 30.11.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.11338 of 2020 and allow this Writ Appeal.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.]
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P. (MD)No.11338 of 2020, dated 30.11.2020, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was appointed as Office Assistant and thereafter, the post was re- designated as Lab Assistant and further he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 15.02.1994 and further promoted as Assistant in the year 1995 and the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Superintendent. Thereafter, he retired from service on 31.05.2008. However, the appellant claims that one Sivashankaran, who was junior to the appellant was promoted to the post of Superintendent and on par with the said Sivasankaran, the appellant claims notional promotion after retirement. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition and challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the appellant was initially appointed as Office Assistant and the said post was re-designated as Lab Assistant and promoted as Junior Assistant on 15.02.1994 and further promoted as Assistant in the year 1995 and retired on 31.05.2008. The petitioner claims that one Sivasankaran, was junior to him, however, a perusal of the records reveals that the said Sivasankaran was granted promotion to the post of Assistant on 04.04.1994, whereas the appellant was promoted as Assistant only on 20.10.1995. In the feeder category, the said Sivasankaran is senior to the appellant and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly in order and cannot be interfered by this Court.
Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
