M.K. Kanagaraj Vs The Secretary to Government

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s representation dated 12.09.2025 and consequently, direct the Respondents to confer promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager, fixing the petitioner’s seniority retrospectively from the year 2012 with monetary benefits.

¶19

For Petitioner: Ms.Dr.R.Gouri

¶20

Mr.M.Murali Vinoth for R2 to R4 For Respondents: Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader for R1

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to direct the 3rd Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s representation dated 12.09.2025 and consequently, direct the Respondents to confer promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager, fixing the petitioner’s seniority retrospectively from the year 2012 with monetary benefits.

¶23

Mr.P.Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader takes

¶24

notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.M.Murali Vinoth, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 349 of 2026

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the respondent

¶28

Transport Corporation as a trainee in the year 1996. Subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Engineer and his services were regularized with effect from 11.03.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 11.03.2003 and later to the post of Assistant Engineer (Special Grade) on 01.04.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that he made representation dated 12.09.2025 before the third respondent, seeking promotion for the post of Assistant Manager by fixing his seniority retrospectively from the year 2012. However, the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

¶29

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it would suffice, if this Court issues a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders on the same within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶30

On the above contention, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶31

In view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the third

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 349 of 2026

¶34

respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties.

¶35