The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the seniority panel for promotion to the post of Peshkar. The Court rejected the claim that seniority is based on the date of clearing exams and upheld the placement of the senior by age.
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.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023 and
W.M.P(MD)No.15956 of 2023
M.Kamalanathan, Assistant (Peshkar), Arulmigu Ramanatha Swamy Temple, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram.
... Petitioner
Vs.
Arulmigu Ramanatha Swamy Temple, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram.
... Respondents
1/9
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.615/2014/A2, dated 21.09.2022 and impugned panel prepared by the first respondent in his proceedings Pa.Mu.No.15176/2023/Z4, dated 31.03.2023 in so far as the post of Assistant is concern and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to place the petitioner above the third respondent in the panel for promotion to the post of Peshkar based on the representation, dated 04.04.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Rajan
For R-1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.S.Ramesh For R-3 : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the orders passed by the second respondent herein, dated 21.09.2022 and 31.03.2023, wherein the request of the writ petitioner to place him above the third respondent in the panel for promotion to the post of Peshkar has been rejected.
2/9
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
petitioner was appointed as a Watchman on temporary basis in the second respondent Temple on 09.06.1999 and he was promoted as a Junior Assistant on 31.12.2007. He was transferred and posted as a Temple Peshkar temporarily by an order, dated 08.07.2011. He had further contended that he had cleared the departmental examinations in May 2012.
3/9
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
4/9
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
panel, though objections were raised by the third respondent and others, the said objections were rejected and the petitioner's name was placed above the third respondent. Hence, he contended that the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed without proper appreciation of Rule 11 of the above said Rules. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.
5/9
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
perused the materials available on record.
6/9
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
12.10.2023
7/9
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR
To
8/9
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
BTR
W.P.(MD).No.19256 of 2023
12.10.2023
9/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether inter se seniority between candidates for promotion is to be fixed based on the date of passing the departmental examination or by age.
Whether the panel preparation by the respondent Temple was legal in placing one assistant below another based on degree of seniority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Kamalanathan
Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Chennai
Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Ramanatha Swamy Temple, Rameswaram
M. Muniyasamy
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
