Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging promotion appointments. The court held petitioners lacked locus standi, the petition was barred by laches due to significant delay, and promoted officers had completed required training.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 26.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.23162 of 2016 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16632 to 16634 of 2016 & 1604, 1956 of 2017
3.D.Sangeetha 4.N.Saroja 5.R.Malathi 6.B.Kannathasan 7.N.Karthikeyan 8.V.Ashokkumar 9.S.Elango 10.M.Saravanamoorthy 11.K.Nirmal 12.B.Indrani 13.G.Balasubramanian 14.P.Anbumani 15.P.Senthilkumar 16.S.Mahesh 17.G.Suganadevi 18.T.Premkumar 19.S.Suresh 20.R.Palanisamy 21.G.Paulpandi 22.K.Shanthi 23.S.Revathi 24.B.Gurumoorthy ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The Principal Secretary / Personal & Administrative Reforms (B) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 3. The Director, Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
2
14.K.Kamatchi ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.PaVa 4/2619/2012 dated 29.05.2012 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.Pava 9/4624/2014 dated 22.09.2016 and the consequential rejection order passed by the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.Pava 4/2388/2016 dated 22.09.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 4th respondent to draw the inter se seniority list of Assistants directly recruited through TNPSC and the Promotive Assistants by placing the Promotive Assistants below the directly recruited Assistants in the light of the fact that the Promotive Assistants did not complete the one year Junior Assistant training as contemplated under Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar for
M/s.Ajmal Associates,
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.4 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R.5 to R.14
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
3
private respondents herein) ought to have been placed below the petitioners. The petitioners have, therefore, questioned not only the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the fourth respondent granting promotion in favour of the private respondents, but also the consequential proceedings. The petitioners want the fourth respondent to redraw the inter se seniority list of directly recruited Assistants, who are recruited through TNPSC and the Promotee Assistants, by placing the Promotee Assistants below the directly recruited Assistants. The sheet anchor of the petitioners' contention is that the Promotee Assistants did not complete the one year Junior Assistant training as contemplated under Rule 30(c) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.
4
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(W)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
Chennai.
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
Karur, Karur District.
+1cc to M/s. AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate, Sr.No.58165 +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, Sr.No.58009 +1cc to Spl. Government Pleader, Sr.No.58916
W.P.(MD)No.23162 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16632 to 16634 of 2016 & 1604, 1956 of 2017 26.03.2018
GK
VE/KKR/SAR1/05.06.2018/4P/8C
3 issues framed by the court
Whether directly recruited petitioners have locus standi to challenge promotion of pre-existing promotee assistants.
Whether the writ petition suffers from laches due to delay of over four and a half years.
Whether the promotee assistants satisfied the one-year Junior Assistant training requirement under Rule 30(c) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Staff Rules.
M.Saravanan and others
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department
The District Collector, Karur
Privately Respondents (Promotee Assistants)
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
