WP(MD)/14251/2019 of L.BABU Vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 05.01.2018 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 19.03.2019 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to place the petitioner in Serial No.11 in the panel of the Assistants for the year 2001 and grant him successive promotion at par with the 1993 batch TNPSC selectees along with monetary and other benefits.

2. Heard Mr.M.Jerin Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Jaganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The writ petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 23.04.1991. He was promoted as an Assistant in the year 2003 and was posted in the Madurai Division. while he was appointed in the Tirunelveli Division, on his request by way of mutual transfer, he was transferred to Madurai region and he joined the Madurai region in March 1996. The petitioner was given promotion as an Assistant vide proceedings dated 16.05.2005 by placing him in the 2003 panel. He was later promoted as a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in the year 2011 and was later promoted as a Sales Tax Officer in 2018.

5. The petitioner would contend that, while drawing the panel for promotion, to the post of Assistant, though he remains in Serial No.11, he was not included in the impugned panel and therefore he lost his chance of getting promoted in the year 2001 and the impugned order to the contrary is therefore bad in law.

6. The counter affidavit filed on the side of the department makes it explicitly clear that there were only ten [10] vacancies available in the post of Assistant and therefore in the seniority panel drawn for the year 2001, the petitioner's name was not included as there were 10 seniors than the writ petitioner who were eligible for promotion. Accordingly, either the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion, drawn to the post of Assistants or not, he never had the chance of getting promoted as an Assistant in 2001. The learned counsel would also invite my attention to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit wherein it is specifically stated that for the year 2002, there were no vacancies in the post of Assistant and hence a NIL report was submitted by the then Deputy Commissioner indicating that no person can be held eligible for promotion as there was no available vacancy.

7. The relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit is extracted as under,

10. It is respectfully submitted that the above happenings Thiru. L. Dheenadayalan, who is senior to Thiru. A.Vijhula Pushpam Vijay has requested this office in his petition Dated 23.03.2001 stating that the seniority of Thiru. L. Babu, has been mistakenly fixed without taking the original date of joining of Thiru.A.Vijhula Pushpa Vijay as per the orders issued by Joint Commissioner(Admin), Office of the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. This aspect has been verified and found that the date of joining of Thiru. A. Vijhula Pushpam Vijay was 15.09.93 and as per rule 20(b) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service the date of joining of Thiru. A. Vijhula Pushpam Vijay should have been assigned to Thiru.L.Babu, the petitioner, who is Junior to Thiru.L.Dheenadhayalan and also as per the conditions laid down in the proceedings of oint Commissioner(Admin), Office of the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Proc. No.13/117640/94, Dt.19.03.96 (ie) mutual transfer order. By adopting the correct date of 15.09.93, the name of Thiru.L.Babu does not come for consideration since there are 34 seniors above him. To set right the error erupt at the time of the selection of panel an order deleting the name of Thiru.L.Babu was issued in this office proceedings in Roc. A5/10718/01, Dated.07.09.2001. In view of the above facts his name could not be included in the panel of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for the year 2010.

11. It is respectfully submitted that at even though he was given the seniority of Mr.A. Vijhula Pushpam Vijay, he was not promoted in accordance with Mr.A.Vijhula Pushpam Vijay's seniority. This can be observed from the fact that when the seniority panel for the year 2001 was called for the post of Assistants there were only 10 vacancies available and all the 10 individuals ranked above him were promoted as Assistants by including them in the panel for the year 2001 through proceedings dated 06.02.03. Furthermore, he was not considered for the panel drawn for the year 2002 either as there was no vacancies for the post in that year, and the Deputy Commissioner submitted a report stating "Nil," indicating that no person was eligible for promotion

12. It is respectfully submitted that Thiru.L.Babu was promoted as an Assistant by placing him in the panel drawn for the year 2003 through proceedings dated 16.06.05. It would be clear that despite him being eligible. but he was not considered for the years 2001 and 2002 due to the lack of vacancies.

13. It is respectfully submitted that he was aggrieved by the non- inclusion of his name in the promotion panel for the post of Assistant in the year 2001. Не made a representation dated 11.09.17 to this office, requesting to be notionally promoted as an Assistant and placed at Serial No.11 for the year 2001, with all monetary and other benefits. However his request has been rejected through this office memorandum dated

05.01.18, based on the following:

a) Every year the crucial date for Assistant motion is March 15.

b) His petition for the vacancies for the year 01.04.2002 through the Right to Information Act and asking to fix the seniority at the last of 2001 Assistant panel and representing the vacancies through the Right to Information Act and fixing the seniority for the previous year 2001 is not acceptable. The above said memorandum also confirmed by the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai vide Letter No. H2/15042/2018 Dated: 19.03.2019.

14. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner claim to be placed in Serial No. 11 in the panel of Assistants for the year 2001 may not be valid if there were only 10 vacancies available at that time and the top 10 candidates above him were promoted accordingly. The respondents have the discretion to determine promotion based on the available vacancies and the qualifications of the candidates. Granting the petitioner successive promotions on par with the 1993 batch TNPSC selectees may not be justified if the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria or qualifications for promotion. Promotions are typically based on a combination of factors, such as seniority, performance, and availability of vacancies. If the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria for promotion in subsequent years, it would not be appropriate to grant promotion solely based on seniority alone.

8. Mr.M.Jerin Matthew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that though the petitioner may not be eligible for promotion in the year 2001, based on the RTI communication it is evident that there were vacancies available in the year 2002 and therefore, the statement made by the department that there was no vacancies in the year 2002 may not be correct. However, the fact remains that no rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed, denying the statement in the counter affidavit that there was no vacancy in the year 2002. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted by placing him in the panel for the year 2003 and he had also enjoyed the benefits of further promotion to the next higher level post as well.

9. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned proceedings and the writ petition stands dismissed. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved based on the RTI communication, he is at liberty to workout his remedy in the manner known to law, by making necessary representation with regard to non-drawing of panel for the year 2002.

10. I find no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed, with liberty granted as indicated above. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No psa To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai

2. The Joint Commissioner (ST) Madurai Division, Madurai

N.DILIP KUMAR, J. psa WP(MD) No. 14251 of 2019 13-10-2026