Allowed¶68

R.Vijayan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC4 Dec 2025WP/2923/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: relinquishment of promotion; temporary relinquishment for three years; Section 57 Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016; withdrawal of relinquishment request; PG Assistant (Mathematics); recruitment by transfer from non-teaching posts; 2% vacancy quota; posting order not issued; Certiorarified Mandamus; Section 226 Constitution of India; service and monetary benefits; School Education Department Tamil Nadu. Relevant where an employee retracts a relinquishment request before the alternative posting order issues and the department seeks to enforce reversion citing Section 57.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to permit the petitioner to continue in the post of PG Assistant with all service and monetary benefits; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

R.Vijayan Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who withdrew his request for relinquishment of the post of PG Assistant before any posting order to the post of Assistant was issued, can be ordered to revert to the post of Assistant by the impugned orders. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

In view of the fact that the petitioner withdrew his request for relinquishment, the defence taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced; consequently the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

Section 57 of the Act does not, in any manner, justify the impugned order, particularly because the respondents had initially not acted upon the petitioner's relinquishment request but had regularized him in the post of PG Assistant, and thereafter accepted the relinquishment without providing any appointment order for the post of Assistant.

¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J.), WP No. 2923 of 2023 (with WMP Nos. 3021 & 3024 of 2023), decided 04-12-2025: A Typist (from 18.09.2009) promoted Assistant (from 30.03.2013) was appointed PG Assistant (Mathematics) on 06.02.2021 under the Government's 2% recruitment-by-transfer policy for qualified non-teaching staff. He sought relinquishment of the PG Assistant post on 02.02.2022 citing pay-scale disadvantage; the department instead regularized him as PG Assistant (proceedings 10.02.2022), then accepted the relinquishment (letter 25.04.2022) with a three-year bar (till 01.01.2025) but never issued a posting order to the post of Assistant. After the petitioner withdrew his relinquishment request (letter 09.11.2022), the third respondent issued the impugned proceedings (Na.Ka.No. 26418/A4/E3/2022, 20.01.2023) posting him as Assistant, defending it under Section 57, Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. Holding that Section 57 did not justify the order - the department having regularized the petitioner and failed to issue the Assistant posting order before he withdrew the request - the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed that the petitioner continue as PG Assistant with all service and monetary benefits.

¶1

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 2923 of 2023 and WMP Nos.3021 & 3024 of 2023

R.Vijayan

Petitioner(s)

The Commissioner School Education, DPI campus College Road chennai 600 006

¶11

2.The Joint Director (Higher Secondary) School Education, DPI Campus College Road chennai 600 006

¶12

3.The Joint Director (personnel) DPI campus College Road chennai 600 006

¶13

4.The Chief Educational officer Thiruvannamalai

¶14

5.The Headmaster E.Ve. Ra Higher Secondary school, Vellore, vellore District

¶15

6.The Head master

¶16

Government Higher secondary school Kelur Thiruvannamalai District

¶17

Page No.1/11

¶18

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

WP No. 2923 of 2023

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:-

This writ petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second Respondent in Na.Ka.No. 6451 / W3 / E1 / 2021 dated 25.04.2022 and consequential impugned order of the third Respondent in Na.Ka.No. 26418 / A4 / E3 / 2022 20.01.2023, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in the post of PG Assistant with all service and monetary benefits.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): M/s.Dakshayani Reddy, Standing Counsel for M/s.S.Suneetha

¶24

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Prabhakar, GA

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶27

"calling for the records of the second Respondent in Na.Ka.No. 6451 / W3 / E1 / 2021 dated 25.04.2022 and consequential impugned order of the third Respondent in Na.Ka.No. 26418 / A4 / E3 / 2022 20.01.2023, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in the post of PG Assistant with all service and monetary benefits.”

¶28

This case reflects the nonchalant manner in which recruitments,

¶29

transfers, etc., are dealt with by public authorities. The facts narrated herein

¶30

Page No.2/11

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶33

below would demonstrate the same.

¶34

The petitioner was originally appointed as a Typist, with effect from 18.09.2009 and his services in the said post were regularized and probation was also declared. With effect from 30.03.2013, he was promoted to the post of Assistant and his services were also regularized in the said post. Meanwhile, the Government had taken a policy decision to provide for 2 % vacancy in the post of PG Assistant to be filled up by recruitment by transfer from the non-teaching posts in the Education Department provided they were qualified.

¶35

The petitioner herein is qualified with the B.Sc Mathematics, M.Sc Mathematics and B.Ed. Degrees and therefore, he is fully eligible for the appointment to the post of PG Assistant in Mathematics as per this policy decision of the Government. Consequently, the petitioner was appointed to the post of PG Assistant (Mathematics), vide proceedings of the Second respondent dated 06.02.2021 and was posted at Kelur, Thiruvannamalai District. He had joined the duty on the very same day after being relieved from the post of Assistant.

¶36

While so, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 02.02.2022 seeking to relinquish his appointment to the post of PG Assistant

¶37

Page No.3/11

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶40

and requested to be re-transferred to the post of Assistant. However, despite receiving the said representation by proceedings dated 10.02.2022, the 3^rd respondent had regularized the service of the petitioner as PG Assistant with effect from 06.02.2021. Therefore, the petitioner had presumed that his request for relinquishing the post of PG Assistant was not considered and he continued to work as PG Assistant. The petitioner had sought relinquishment on the ground that the pay scale drawn by his juniors in the post of Assistant was much higher than the pay scale drawn by the petitioner in the post of P.G. Assistant, as the petitioner’s salary was fixed only at the entry level.

¶41

Parallelly, the respondents acted upon the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.02.2022, by issuing a proceeding dated 25.02.2022, accepting the request for relinquishment with the condition that the petitioner would not seek appointment by transfer to the post of PG Assistant till 01.01.2025 and that his request would only be considered on the expiry of three years depending on the seniority of the petitioner at that point in time. However, an order of appointment to the post of Assistant was not issued to the petitioner and the petitioner continued to work in the post of PG Assistant. Since the petitioner’s service had been regularized in the post of P.G. Assistant and an increment had also been granted to him, it was not beneficial for the petitioner to relinquish the post of P.G. Assistant after a lapse of two years, as such

¶42

Page No.4/11

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶45

relinquishment would adversely affect his monetary and service benefits. Therefore, the petitioner had given a letter dated 09.11.2022, withdrawing his earlier request of relinquishment. Strangely, after receiving this letter, the 3^rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 20.01.2023, issued orders of posting to the petitioner to join the post of Assistant in the 5^th respondent school. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court as the same would adversely affect the petitioner’s monetary as well as service benefits.

¶46

The respondents had filed a counter inter alia, denying the claim of the petitioner and contending that on 16.02.2023, the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2022, requesting that he be permitted to continue in the post of PG Assistant, was rejected. They would submit that once the petitioner had relinquished his promotion temporarily in writing and submitted the same to the appointing authority through the proper channel and the appointment authority has accepted the same with reference to Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as the “ Act”) the petitioner cannot turn the clock back.

¶47

It is their contention that, after having made the representation dated 02.02.2022 of his own volition, the petitioner had temporarily relinquished his promotion for a period of three years and upon its acceptance by the

¶48

Page No.5/11

¶49

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

¶50

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶51

respondents, he cannot claim to continue in the promoted post as a matter of right. The respondents would rely heavily upon Section 57 of the Act to sustain the impugned order.

¶52

The learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon a letter dated 27.06.2022, given by the petitioner in response to the letter dated 25.04.2022, in and by which the respondent had accepted the request of the petitioner for being transferred back as an Assistant.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

¶54

A perusal of the records clearly indicates that on 02.02.2022, the petitioner had submitted a representation relinquishing the post of PG Assistant and seeking reversion to his earlier post. In response, the respondents, by letter dated 10.02.2022, regularized the petitioner’s service as PG Assistant. The petitioner did not challenge this and continued to work in the post of PG Assistant. Two months later, the respondents issued a letter dated 25.04.2022, accepting the petitioner’s request with certain conditions, which was also immediately acknowledged by the petitioner. However, the respondents did not issue the necessary posting order. On 19.11.2022, the petitioner, in writing, withdrew his representation seeking relinquishment. Thereafter, the respondents

¶55

Page No.6/11

¶56

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

¶57

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶58

have woken up and issued the impugned order.

¶59

Section 57, which has been relied upon by the respondent, is extracted

¶60

herein below: -

¶61

57. (1) Any person may, in writing, relinquish any right or privilege to which he may be entitled under this Act or the special rules if, in the opinion of the appointing authority, such relinquishment is not opposed to public interest; and nothing contained in this Act or the special rules shall be deemed to require the recognition of any right or privilege to the extent to which it has been so relinquished.

¶62

(2) Relinquishment of a right or privilege for a temporary period shall be accepted if it is made for a period of not less than three years, subject to the condition that after the expiry of the said period, the claim of the right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the state of affairs that exist on the date of expiry of the period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. If relinquishment of right or privilege is made permanently and is accepted, subsequent claim of the relinquished rights or privileges shall not be entertained.”

¶63

On reading the said provisions, it does not, in any manner, justify the impugned order, particularly when the respondents had initially not acted upon the petitioner’s request but had regularized him in the post of PG Assistant.

¶64

Page No.7/11

¶65

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

¶66

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶67

Thereafter, when the petitioner had been regularized in the post of PG Assistant, the respondents issued a letter dated 25.04.2022 accepting his relinquishment, but did not provide him with an appointment order for the post of Assistant. Thereafter, the petitioner had issued a letter dated 09.11.2022, informing the authorities about the withdrawal of his request for relinquishment as it would adversely affect his monetary as well as service benefits. Thereafter, on 20.01.2023, the impugned order has been passed.

¶68

Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner withdrew his request for relinquishment, the defence taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue in the post of PG Assistant with all service and monetary benefits. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶69

SHA

¶70

04-12-2025

¶71

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶72

Page No.8/11

¶73

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

¶74

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶75

Page No.9/11

¶76

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

¶77

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶78

¶79

1.The Commissioner School Education, DPI campus College Road chennai 600 006

¶80

2.The Joint Director (Higher Secondary) School Education, DPI Campus College Road chennai 600 006

¶81

3.The Joint Director (personnel) DPI campus College Road chennai 600 006

¶82

4.The Chief Educational officer Thiruvannamalai

¶83

5.The Headmaster E.Ve. Ra Higher Secondary school, Vellore, vellore District

¶84

6.The Head master Government Higher secondary school Kelur Thiruvannamalai District

¶85

Page No.10/11

¶86

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

WP No. 2923 of 2023

P.T.ASHA J.

SHA

WP No. 2923 of 2023

¶91

04-12-2025

¶92

Page No.11/11

¶93

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No. 26418 / A4 / E3 / 2022 dated 20.01.2023 issuing orders of posting directing the petitioner to join the post of Assistant in the 5th respondent school.¶22
Third respondent - The Joint Director (personnel), School Education · 20.01.2023
Prior proceeding
Petitioner originally appointed as Typist with effect from 18.09.2009; services regularized and probation declared.¶34
Prior proceeding
Promoted to the post of Assistant with effect from 30.03.2013; services regularized in that post.¶34
Prior proceeding
Government policy decision to provide 2% vacancy in the post of PG Assistant to be filled by recruitment by transfer from qualified non-teaching posts in the Education Department.¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed PG Assistant (Mathematics) vide second respondent's proceedings dated 06.02.2021, posted at Kelur, Thiruvannamalai District; joined the same day after relief from the post of Assistant.¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted representation dated 02.02.2022 seeking to relinquish the post of PG Assistant (pay-scale of juniors as Assistant was higher; his salary fixed at entry level).¶36
Prior proceeding
Despite the relinquishment representation, the third respondent regularized the petitioner's service as PG Assistant with effect from 06.02.2021 by proceedings dated 10.02.2022; petitioner did not challenge this and continued as PG Assistant.¶40
Prior proceeding
Respondents issued a proceeding dated 25.02.2022 accepting the relinquishment request with conditions: no fresh appointment by transfer to PG Assistant till 01.01.2025, reconsideration only after expiry of three years based on seniority then prevailing; however, no appointment order to the post of Assistant was issued.¶41
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 25.04.2022 accepting the petitioner's request with certain conditions; immediately acknowledged by the petitioner; necessary posting order not issued.¶54
Prior proceeding
Petitioner gave a letter dated 27.06.2022 in response to the respondents' letter dated 25.04.2022 (cited by respondents' counsel).¶52
Prior proceeding
Petitioner withdrew his earlier relinquishment request by letter dated 09.11.2022, as relinquishment after regularization and increment would adversely affect his monetary and service benefits.¶45
Prior proceeding
Respondents filed a counter denying the petitioner's claim, contending that on 16.02.2023 his representation dated 09.11.2022 seeking continuance as PG Assistant was rejected, and relying on Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.¶46

R.Vijayan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vijayan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Balasubramanian Vs The Special Secretary to Government

J.Eugene Michael Rozario Vs Bharathiar University

R.Balakrishnan Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Socieities

K.Vijayarani Vs The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts

A.Velmayil Vs The Managing Director

K.Pandian Vs The Managing Director