Disposed¶46

Rajesh S v. The Director

Madras HC3 Dec 2025WP(MD)/9390/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotional panel 2018-2019; Junior Assistant to Assistant Inspector promotion; Local Fund Audit Office; probation not completed on crucial date; non-relief by Revenue Divisional Officer; remedy elsewhere; writ of mandamus under Article 226; petition closed as infructuous after promotion via 2019-2020 panel by proceedings dated 28.02.2024; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; single judge B.Pugalandhi; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner admittedly had not completed the probation period on the crucial date for the panel of the year 2018-2019. ¶45

Rajesh S Vs The Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD). No.9390 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 03.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.9390 of 2023

S.Rajesh

... Petitioner

versus

The Director, Directorate of Local Fund Audit,

¶11

6^th Floor, Perasiriyar K.Anbazhagan Maligai, Nandanam,

¶12

Chennai – 35.

¶13

The Special Director,

¶14

Directorate of Local Fund Audit, 4^th Floor, Perasiriyar K.Anbazhagan Maligai, Nandanam,

¶15

Chennai – 35.

¶16

The Director,

¶17

State Government Audit Department,

¶18

4^th Floor, Perasiriyar K.Anbazhagan Maligai, Nandanam,

¶19

Chennai – 35.

¶20

Assistant Director, State Government Audit Department, 43, Sasthri 1^st Street,

¶21

Sivagangai – 630 561.

¶22

1/6

¶23

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

¶24

WP(MD). No.9390 of 2023

¶25

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Sub-Division, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶26

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the promotional panel for the year 2018-2019 from the post of Junior Assistant/Typist and consequently to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Inspector by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.04.2023, within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner was originally appointed as a Village

¶30

Administrative Officer on 29.05.2015. After obtaining permission, he appeared for the selection process of Junior Assistant in the Local Fund Audit Office and he has been selected and appointed as Junior Assistant in the Local Fund Audit Office on 16.02.2016. The persons, who have been selected and appointed as Junior Assistants along with the petitioner in the year 2016, have been promoted as Assistant Inspectors in the year 2018-2019. The petitioner, with a grievance that he has not

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

WP(MD). No.9390 of 2023

¶34

been accommodated in the promotional panel for the year 2018-2019 along with his juniors, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to add him in the promotional panel for the year 2018-2019.

¶35

When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned

¶36

Special Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has been added in the promotional panel for the year 2019-2020 and he has also been promoted as Assistant Inspector, by proceedings dated 28.02.2024. Therefore, the writ petition becomes infructuous.

¶37

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ought to have been added in the promotional panel for the year 2018-2019, however, he has been promoted only in the year 2024 by adding him in the panel for the year 2019-2020.

¶38

According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner has not completed the probation period on the crucial date for the panel of the year 2018-2019, for which, the learned counsel for the

¶39

3/6

¶40

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

¶41

WP(MD). No.9390 of 2023

¶42

petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been selected, he has not been relieved by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, he could

¶43

not join the duty immediate to the appointment of Junior Assistant.

¶44

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶45

Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed the probation period on the crucial date for the panel of the year 2018-2019. In the event, if the petitioner is having a grievance that he has not been relieved by the Revenue Divisional Officer on time and on account that, he has been denied the promotional avenue in the panel of the year 2018-2019, he has to workout his remedy elsewhere.

¶46