Disposed¶38

N.Nandhini Devi @ Anisha v. the Director of Sericulture

Madras HC24 Jun 2025WP/22256/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; promotion panel 2016-2017; Inspector of Sericulture; Assistant Inspector of Sericulture; seniority; junior promoted; representation dated 26.07.2023; delay and laches; stale claim; charge memorandum 02.06.2017; exoneration 21.08.2019; probation declared 2020; direction to consider representation; eight weeks; Article 226; Writ of Mandamus; Director of Sericulture; Madras High Court; C.Kumarappan, J.; W.P.No.22256 of 2025; N.Nandhini Devi @ Anisha v. Director of Sericulture.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2023 and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no costs. ¶38

N.Nandhini Devi @ Anisha Vs the Director of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to have her name included in the panel for promotion to the post of Inspector of Sericulture for the year 2016-2017 with reference to her seniority, with promotion on par with her junior T.Muthupandian and consequential service and monetary benefits. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The first respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2023 and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law (the Court disposing of the petition without going into its merits).

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The representation of the petitioner dated 26.07.2023 remains unconsidered by the first respondent.

¶35

Key takeaways

Orders on the representation were to be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶37
Observing the factual position (exoneration in 2019 and declaration of probation in 2020, according to the petitioner), the Court noted there was no delay in sending the representation dated 26.07.2023; the delay objection was not conclusively adjudicated as the petition was disposed of without going into the merits.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C.Kumarappan, J.) disposed of W.P.No.22256 of 2025 filed by N.Nandhini Devi @ Anisha, Assistant Inspector of Sericulture (appointed 30.01.2014), who sought inclusion of her name in the 2016-2017 panel for promotion to Inspector of Sericulture on par with her junior T.Muthupandian, relying on her exoneration from charges on 21.08.2019 (charge memorandum dated 02.06.2017) and declaration of probation in 2020. Her representation dated 26.07.2023 remained unconsidered by the Director of Sericulture; the respondents objected that the belated representation was a fresh cause of action on a stale claim, three panels having passed without objection. Without going into the merits of the writ petition, the Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation dated 26.07.2023 and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.

¶1

W.P.No.22256 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.22256 of 2025

¶7

N.Nandhini Devi @ Anisha

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Director of Sericulture, Salem-636001

¶11

2.Mr.T.Muthupandian, Assistant Director of Sericulture, Namakkal-637001 ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the First Respondent to include the Petitioner's name in the Panel for promotion to the post of Inspector of Sericulture for the year 2016-2017 with reference to her seniority and grant her promotion as Inspector Sericulture on par with her junior Mr.T.Muthupandian (the second respondent herein) and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

By consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ

¶16

Petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.22256 of 2025

¶20

The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus, directing the First Respondent to include the Petitioner's name in the Panel for promotion to the post of Inspector of Sericulture for the year 2016-2017 with reference to her seniority and grant her promotion as Inspector Sericulture on par with her junior Mr.T.Muthupandian (the second respondent herein) and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Inspector of Sericulture on 30.01.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that petitioner was not considered for promotion for the panel year 2016-2017 and in between there was a charge memorandum issued to the petitioner on 02.06.2017 and subsequently, after enquiry, on 21.08.2019 she was exonerated from the charges. Therefore, it is the submission of the petitioner that she is entitled for inclusion of panel of the year 2016-2017 and in this

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.22256 of 2025

¶26

connection, she has sent a representation on 26.07.2023, which is pending with the 1^st respondent.

¶27

However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would strongly object the contention of the petitioner and would submit that after 2016-2017 panel, there were three panels and all these years the petitioner did not give any objections. Therefore, the belated representation is nothing but creating a fresh cause of action upon a stale claim. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶28

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on

¶29

either side.

¶30

While looking at the factual position, though the petitioner had given representation during 2023, according to the petitioner, she was exonerated from the charges only during 2019 and probation was declared thereafter during 2020, therefore, there is no delay in sending the representation dated 26.07.2023.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.22256 of 2025

¶34

Though the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents

¶35

would strongly object the contention of the petitioner, the fact remains that the representation of the petitioner dated 26.07.2023 is yet to be considered by the 1^st respondent.

¶36

In such view of the matter, without going into the merits of the writ

¶37

petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2023 and pass orders on it's own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38