Disposed¶28

D.Caroline Kamala Bai v. The Director

Madras HC14 Aug 2025WP(MD)/27122/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority; regularisation; consolidated wages versus time scale; starting point of service; unchallenged appointing authority proceedings; promotion parity with juniors; promotion to Superintendent; seniority list for Assistant dated 05.12.2022; Institute of Road Transport; IRT Polytechnic College Tirunelveli; writ of Mandamus; Article 226; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; disposal with limited direction; respondents did not appear and no counter filed; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction that when the respondents decide promotion to the post of Assistant, the petitioner be considered based on her seniority; no mandamus for promotion as Superintendent; no order as to costs. ¶28

D.Caroline Kamala Bai Vs The Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to inclusion of her name in the seniority list for the post of Superintendent and promotion as Superintendent on par with her juniors, with all monetary benefits. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Since the petitioner is placed at Serial No.1 in the seniority list for promotion to the post of Assistant dated 05.12.2022, when the respondents decide to effect promotion to the post of Assistant, the petitioner may be considered based on her seniority.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's initial appointment on 02.12.1994 was on consolidated wages and was not a cadre post.

¶22

Key takeaways

The date of regularisation, 25.01.1997, fixed by the Appointing Authority as per proceedings dated 04.04.1997, is the starting point of the petitioner's service and has not been challenged.ratio¶26
The petitioner's initial appointment is to be reckoned as in the year 1997 for the purpose of effecting the promotion list.ratio¶26
S.Sampath Kumar and K.Muthuraj were directly appointed in the cadre post in 1995 itself and therefore cannot be termed as juniors to the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus under Article 226 – claim for inclusion in seniority list and promotion as Superintendent on par with juniors – petitioner appointed as Record Clerk Cum Typist on consolidated wages on 02.12.1994; brought into regular time scale only with effect from 25.01.1997 by proceedings dated 04.04.1997 – consolidated-wages post held not a cadre post – starting point of service fixed by Appointing Authority as 25.01.1997, unchallenged, hence initial appointment reckoned as 1997 for promotion list – S.Sampath Kumar and K.Muthuraj, directly appointed to the cadre post on 14.07.1995 and 19.07.1995, held not juniors – petitioner placed at Serial No.1 in seniority list for Assistant dated 05.12.2022 – writ petition disposed of with direction that petitioner be considered based on seniority when promotion to Assistant is effected – no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.27122 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.27122 of 2019

¶7

D.Caroline Kamala Bai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director, Institute of Road Transport, Tharamani, Chennai – 600 113. 2.The Principal, IRT Polytechnic College, Trivandrum Road, Kanganthanparai, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District – 627 007. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to include the petitioner's name in the seniority list for the post of 'Superintendent' and promote the petitioner as 'Superintendent' on par with her juniors, by taking into account of her total years of service in various feeder posts in the office of the 2^nd respondent and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to confer all monetary benefits to her within a stipulated time.

¶9

Page 1 of 5

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan For Respondents : No appearance

¶12

W.P.(MD).No.27122 of 2019

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking direction for inclusion of her name in the seniority list for the post of Superintendent and to promote the petitioner as Superintendent on par with her junior taking into account her total years of service in various posts and confer all monetary benefits.

¶15

According to the petitioner, originally, she was appointed in the post of

¶16

Record Clerk Cum Typist in consolidated wages on 02.12.1994. Subsequently, she was brought into regular time scale of pay in the sanctioned vacancy as per the proceedings dated 04.04.1997 with effect from 25.01.1997. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Typist Cum Junior Assistant in the time scale of pay on 15.03.2007 with effect from 01.12.2006. She sent a representation to the respondents seeking promotion on par with her juniors. According to her, one S.Sampath Kumar and K.Muthuraj, who are juniors and were appointed after 02.12.1995 in the cadre post of Typist Cum Record Clerk, have already been promoted as Assistant and they are likely to be promoted as Superintendent.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.27122 of 2019

¶20

Hence, she has come forward with the Writ Petition seeking promotion to the post of Superintendent on par with her juniors.

¶21

There is no representation for the respondents and no counter is also filed before this Court. However, I have gone through the records. A perusal of the records shows that admittedly, one S.Sampath Kumar and K.Muthuraj, who are cited as juniors to the petitioner, were appointed in the cadre post of Typist cum Record Clerk on 14.07.1995 and 19.07.1995 respectively. According to the petitioner, while the petitioner was accommodated in the cadre post, her services ought to have been regularised from 02.12.1994 instead of 25.01.1997. She further stated that her initial appointment in the post of Record Clerk cum Typist is on 02.12.1994 and hence, she is senior to the other two persons.

¶22

This Court is unable to accept this submission. Admittedly, the petitioner's initial appointment on 02.12.1994 is on the consolidated wages and it is not a cadre post. Her services were regularised only with effect from 25.01.1997 and a separate proceedings dated 04.04.1997 was issued in this regard. On perusal of the proceedings dated 04.04.1997, it is made clear that she was earlier appointed as a Record Clerk/Typist on consolidated wages and brought into regular time scale only with effect from 25.01.1997, i.e., in the

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.27122 of 2019

¶26

cadre strength. This date is the starting point of her service fixed by the Appointing Authority as per the proceedings dated 04.04.1997 and the same has not yet been challenged. Hence, the initial appointment of the petitioner is in the year 1997 and the same has to be reckoned for the purpose of effecting promotion list. Further, it is admitted that the other two persons, who have been compared with the petitioner, have been directly appointed in the cadre post in the year 1995 itself. Hence, they cannot be termed as juniors to the petitioner.

¶27

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now placed in Serial No.1 in the seniority list for promotion to the post of Assistant issued on 05.12.2022. If that be the case, when the respondents decide to effect promotion for the post of Assistant, the petitioner may also be considered based on her seniority.

¶28