Dismissed

K.Janaki v. the Principal District Judge

Madras HC5 Mar 2024WP/5502/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought promotion to Head Clerk and inclusion in the seniority list, alleging her name was erroneously excluded during a promotion panel. The court dismissed the petition, holding that exclusion during punishment was correctly done and the claim is untenable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for promotion and inclusion in the seniority list was dismissed.

K.Janaki Vs the Principal District Judge — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:1371

¶2

W.P.No.5502 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 05.03.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P.No.5502 of 2024

¶9

and

¶10

W.M.P.No.6082 of 2024

K.Janaki

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Principal District Judge, Salem, Salem District.

¶15

The Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Salem, Salem District.

¶16

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras. ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶18

to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in R.O.C No.11647/A2/2023 dated 08.09.2023 vide proceedings passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to re-fix the seniority list dated 21.09.2022 and include the petitioner's name in the seniority list of Bench

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.5502 of 2024

¶22

Clerk Grade II ahead of the petitioner junior and consequently direct the 1^st

¶23

respondent to promote the petitioner as head clerk with all appropriate

¶24

benefits in the light of the law settled by full bench in the Judgment reported

¶25

in 2011 3 CTC Page 129 within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajakumar

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.M.Santhanaraman

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶30

The proceedings dated 08.09.2023 issued by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, declining to accept the request of the writ petitioner for inclusion of her name in the panel dated 30.09.2022 for promotion is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶31

The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Typist in the Judicial

¶32

Department. She was promoted to the post of Bench Clerk Grade III. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her in the year 2019. The disciplinary proceedings ended with an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The final order of punishment was issued on 08.12.2020. Consequent to the punishment, the

¶33

Page 2 of 5

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.5502 of 2024

¶36

writ petitioner was redeployed to the post of Bench Clerk Grade III, as per the proceedings of the learned Principal District Judge dated 18.04.2022.

¶37

The grievances of the writ petitioner is that she was not considered for inclusion of her name in the panel dated 30.09.2022 prepared for grant of promotion. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that even after the expiry of the punishment period, the name of the writ petitioner was not considered. Thus, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted.

¶38

Mr.M.Santhanaraman, appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose the said contention by stating that the panel was prepared during the currency of punishment and therefore, the name of the writ petitioner was not included in the panel dated 30.09.2022. After the expiry of the currency of punishment, she was redeployed to the post of Bench Clerk Grade III as per Clause XI (Section 7(1)) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

¶39

In view of the above legal position, the claim of the writ petitioner

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.5502 of 2024

¶43

is untenable and her case is to be considered whenever she is suitable and

¶44

eligible under the Rules, which is in force.

¶45

With this observation, the Writ Petition stand dismissed.

¶46

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶47

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 05.03.2024

¶48

skr Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶49

¶50

The Principal District Judge, Salem, Salem District.

¶51

The Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Salem, Salem District.

¶52

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.

¶53

Page 4 of 5

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.No.5502 of 2024

¶56

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶57

skr

¶58

W.P.No.5502 of 2024

¶59

05.03.2024

¶60

Page 5 of 5

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Janaki v. the Principal District Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Janaki v. the Principal District Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Kulamani Vs the Registrar General

P.Elangovan Vs the Registrar General

P.Ponnusamy Vs The Registrar General

R.Bagyalakshmi, Vs The Principal District Judge/

R.Natesan Vs The Principal District Judge

R. Venkatesan Vs Selvakumar and 2 others