WP(MD)/13015/2026 of Vanitha P Vs The Secretary to Government on 6 October 2026

ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.928/2016/Pa.A.1, dated 26.06.2024, and the consequential order in Na.Ka.No.3360/2024/Pa.A.2-2, dated 28.06.2024, and seeks to quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 to 4 to promote the petitioner to the post of Tahsildar, in accordance with the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1269350/2023/Pa.A.1, issued by the third respondent on 29.02.2024, with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the Revenue Department as an Assistant at Cuddalore and was thereafter transferred and posted as an Assistant at Madurai. While he was working at Madurai, his seniority was fixed below that of the Assistants working at Madurai. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar along with 16 others by order dated 07.12.2015. The said order of promotion was challenged before this Court by respondents 5 to 17 in W.P.(MD) No.106 of 2016. This Court, by order dated 09.11.2023, allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order of promotion granted to the petitioner, Masthan Kani and Senthamaraivalli.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, along with Masthan Kani and Senthamaraivalli, filed a review application in Rev.ApplW(MD) No.2 of

2024. While disposing of the review application, this Court made the following observations: “6. Learned Government Pleader on last occasion produced an order of the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 12.06.2024, whereby he has allowed the appeal filed by Masthan Kani and others viz., respondents 5 to 7 in the writ petition and has placed them as senior to the writ petitioners. This is a subsequent event which will affect the vitality of the order passed by me.”

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Revenue Inspector by the order impugned in the present writ petition. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses all the requisite qualifications and had five years of experience as an Assistant and, therefore, was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. This Court, while allowing W.P.(MD) No.106 of 2016, directed the Government to revise the seniority list. Even in the revised seniority list, the petitioner has been placed at Serial No.424, as against his earlier seniority at Serial No.484, and therefore, he continues to remain within the zone of consideration. However, without considering his revised seniority, rank and qualifications, the third respondent has reverted him from the post of

Deputy Tahsildar to the post of Revenue Inspector. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order warrants interference.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar by order dated 07.12.2015. The said order was challenged by another set of persons who were affected by the said promotion before this Court in W.P. (MD) No.106 of 2016. This Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order of promotion granted to the petitioner and two others. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Government was directed to redo the exercise of fixation of seniority, and the same was accordingly carried out. As per the revised seniority list, the persons who are senior to the petitioner are still working as Revenue Inspectors.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner, along with the other two persons affected by the order in W.P.(MD) No.106 of 2016, filed a review application before this Court in Rev.ApplW(MD) No.2 of 2024. While disposing of the review application, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government by way of revision and directed the Government to dispose of the same within the stipulated period. However, instead of availing the remedy granted by this Court, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

8. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the impugned order has been passed in consonance with the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.106 of 2016, dated 09.11.2023, and in Rev.ApplW(MD) No.2 of 2024, dated 27.06.2024.

9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.(MD) No.106 of 2016 are still permitted to continue in the post of Deputy Tahsildar, whereas the petitioner alone has been reverted to the post of Revenue Inspector. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the promotion granted to respondents 5 and 6 was also set aside by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.106 of 2016, they have nevertheless been permitted to continue in the said post. Therefore, if respondents 5 and 6 are allowed to continue as Deputy Tahsildars while the petitioner alone is reverted as Revenue Inspector, it would be unfair to the petitioner.

10. This Court has considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. The order of promotion dated 07.12.2015, by which the petitioner, Masthan Kani and Senthamaraivalli were promoted as Deputy Tahsildars, was set aside by this Court by order dated 09.11.2023 in W.P.(MD) No.106 of 2016. The petitioner did not challenge the said order. Instead, he filed a review application, in which this Court passed the following order: “9. Sitting in review, I cannot enlarge the scope of the petition. The subsequent fact being the order passed by the Commissioner on 12.06.2024, it makes an ocean of difference between the petitioners as well as the private respondents 5 to 7.

10. In the light of the subsequent development, leaving it open to the persons aggrieved to challenge the order passed by the appellate authority dated 12.06.2024 before the Government, this review stands disposed of. No costs.

11. In case, the petitioners move a revision, the Government shall pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of presentation of the revision petition. Before disposing the revision, the Government shall ensure that the petitioners as well as the respondents 5 to 7 are heard. “

12. In view of the earlier order passed by this Court setting aside the promotion granted to the petitioner, and considering the submission of respondents 1 to 4 that the persons senior to the petitioner are still working as

Revenue Inspectors, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.

13. However, this Court had already granted liberty to the petitioner, while disposing of Rev.ApplW(MD) No.2 of 2024, dated 27.06.2024, to approach the Government by way of revision. Therefore, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a revision before the Government within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. If the petitioner files such revision within the said period, the Secretary to Government shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the other persons concerned. The revision shall be disposed of by a reasoned order within a period of twelve weeks from the date of presentation of the revision petition.

15. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sji

B.PUGALENDHI, J. sji To

1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

2. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 05.

3. The District Collector Madurai District.

4. The District Revenue Officer Collectorate, Madurai - 625 020. WP(MD) No. 13015 of 2026 06-10-2026