In an appeal against the rejection of a claim for retrospective appointment, the court held that transfer from an administrative post to an academic post via selection is not promotion. Consequently, seniority and notional service benefits cannot be claimed retrospectively. The Writ Appeal was dismissed.
Writ Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
G.Nagesh
... Appellant
Vs.
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, praying to set aside the order dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.18995 of 2016 and thereby consequently direct the respondents to promote and regularize the petitioner service as Drawing Master with effect from 20.01.2004 as per order in O.A.No.38/2004 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal only for the purpose of pension and other attendant benefits.
1/12
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.R.S.Anandan For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
The appellant was appointed as an Office Assistant in the year 1984. After some years of service he was promoted as Record Clerk in the year 2001. After he become Record Clerk since he has already earned the necessary qualification to hold the post of Drawing Master or Art or Craft Master, he sought for such promotion/appointment from the respondents since that was not considered the appellant approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and filed an original application where in the year 2004 a direction was given to the respondent Department to consider the plea made by the appellant.
that order was under challenge in W.P.No.27046 of 2004 filed by the appellant.
2/12
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
23.02.2007 where the learned Judge has given direction to the respondent Department to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of the relevant GOs and pass orders within four weeks.
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
rejected through the said order dated 06.11.2015 which triggered the appellant to file the said writ petition in W.P.No.18995 of 2016.
Court dated 12.12.2018 as against which the present appeal has been directed.
contend that, in the year 2001 itself he has become eligible to be considered for appointment as a Drawing Master and thereafter upto 2004 several of his junior on clearing the said qualification since had been considered and such appointment were given, the appellant had to file the original application where a direction was given, however that was not considered in proper perspective and it was rejected in the year 2004 itself, when this was challenged in the writ petition in the year 2004 which was disposed only on 23.02.2007.
4/12
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
be made.
depending upon the vacancy such kind of appointment by transfer would be made.
was under challenge in the subsequent writ petition, orders were passed in the writ petition only on 23.02.2007 and in the said order the plea of the appellant was directed to be considered and that was considered and ultimately the respondent Department decided to give him appointment and accordingly on 26.10.2007 such an appointment was given and that appointment would take effect prospectively and not retrospectively for which the appellant is not entitled to claim.
the year 2004 where a direction was given to consider the request that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
was considered and rejected by order dated 17.06.2004. When this was questioned, the Writ Court, while passing order on 23.02.2007 setting aside the said rejection order dated 17.06.2004, has simply given a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant and pass orders within a time frame.
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
cannot be accepted by this Court as it would go beyond the stretch of imagination.
8/12
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
had simply directed the respondent Department to consider his claim and 9/12
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
to pass orders. If at all the learned Judge thought of giving such retrospective appointment to the appellant/petitioner, the learned Judge would have stated in his order, but nothing has been stated in the said order and against the said order the appellant/petitioner had not agitated the issue at all, he files the writ petition only in the year 2016 i.e. just one year prior to his superannuation.
Judge in the impugned order rejecting the plea of the appellant to give retrospective selection and appointment by way of transfer to the appellant for the post of Drawing Master with effect from either 2001 or 2004 is to be justified and sustained. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails, hence it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Sgl
10/12
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
To
11/12
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
R. SURESH KUMAR, J. And K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Sgl
W.A.No.2650 of 2019
01.08.2023
12/12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appointment by transfer from an administrative feeder category to an academic post can be treated as a promotion with retrospective effect.
Whether a direction to consider a claim warrants automatic retrospective dating of an appointment.
Whether the appellant is entitled to notional service and increased pensionary benefits from the date of eligibility rather than the date of formal appointment.
G. Nagesh
Government of Tamil Nadu
Joint Director of School Education
Chief Educational Officer
R Suresh Kumar
K Kumaresh Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
