WP/6201/2024 of M.SUNDARESAN Vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT on 29 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.12.2023.

2. Heard Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.A.Suganya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, according to the impugned order, the two years of compulsory service in the feeder category for a person to be promoted to the post of a Senior Inspector would apply only to the feeder category of the Junior Inspector and not to the Assistant. Even according to the stand of the respondents, it is for the Appointing Authority to take a decision. Therefore, having there are no Rule, denying promotion on account of not having necessary experience in the feeder category viz.,

Assistant, the petitioner’s promotion cannot be denied. Therefore, would pray to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 and to include the petitioner’s name at the proper place in the panel year 2015 itself for the post of a Senior Inspector. The learned counsel would also rely upon G.O.Ms.No.848, Food Department dated 03.08.1967 and according to him, G.O.Ms.No.848 is applicable to the promotion from the post of Junior Inspectors to the post of Senior Inspectors, which requires only not less than two years experience in the Madras Cooperative Department Service. It is his further submission that there are no bar to temporarily promote the petitioner and therefore, the reason stated by the respondent for not including the petitioner’s name for 2015 panel year is erroneous. Hence, prayed to allow the present Writ petition.

4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Advocate General and would contend that according to the long drawn procedures and policies followed by the respondents, the promotion from the Assistant Ministerial Service could only be temporarily promoted to the post of Senior Inspector and that the temporary promotion to the post of Senior Inspector from the Assistant was done as per the qualification and eligibility criteria framed by the Head of Department. According to the eligibility criteria framed and followed by the Department, for a person to be promoted to the post of a Senior Inspector from the cadre of Assistant, he/she should have completed 3 years of service in the post of Assistant. In the case in hand, the petitioner joined the service as Assistant on 03.09.2012 and he completed his three years service only on 03.09.2015. Whereas, the crucial date for 2015 panel is 01.05.2015. Since the petitioner did not have the experience qualification of three years service on the crucial date, he was not included in the panel. He would further submit that by virtue of New Special Rules under G.O. (Ms).No.95, Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare (MP.II) Department, dated 22.10.2024, three years experience was made as a part of Rule. Therefore, would contend that there are no merits in the present writ petition and hence, prayed to dismiss the same.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are no Rule as to the consideration for promotion from the cadre of Assistant to Senior Inspector. Whereas, as per Ad-hoc Rules, there is a criteria for a Junior Inspector, which is equivalent cadre of an Assistant for consideration to the post of Senior Inspector. According to the Ad-hoc Rules, two years experience in the cadre of a Junior Inspector is mandatory. In the case in hand, wherever there is no Rule for consideration of the promotion, there is a discretion left with the

Appointing Authority to promote the persons from one cadre to another cadre. Admittedly, in the case in hand, there are no statutory Rules for the Assistants to be considered for the post of Senior Inspector. Merely because there are no Rules, it does not confer any right upon the employee to seek promotion as a matter of right to be promoted, when the vacancy arises.

7. It is well settled principle of law that the promotion is not a matter of right, whereas, the consideration for promotion is the fundamental right. The learned Additional Advocate General brought to the notice of this Court that in view of the absence of specific Rules, the Appointing Authority formulated a Policy since 1995 and then onwards, they have been promoting the Assistants to the post of Senior Inspectors, subject to the completion of three years in the post of Assistant. The learned Additional Advocate General also brought to the notice of this Court about the eligibility criteria framed by the Head of Department. According to the eligibility criteria framed by the Head of Department, the following are the necessary qualification for consideration to the post of Senior Inspector:- “1.Should have been regularized in the post of Assistants

2. Should have passed department exam in District Office Manual Test

3. Should have passed departmental exam in Account Test for subordinate service

4. Should have completed Cooperative training for 12 weeks.

5. Should have completed 3 years of service in the post of Assistant.”

8. Whenever the Head of Department formulates any Rules, unless the petitioner projects a case of bias or any disadvantage or selective application of such Rules, the question of finding fault with such policy does not stand for the test of scrutiny. In this case, the learned Additional Advocate General has list out the eligibility criteria of three years service in the post of Assistant for promotion since 1995. He has also given details with regard to the number of persons from the cadre of Assistants promoted to the post of Senior Inspectors after completing three years. From 1995 to 2000, 86 persons were promoted from Assistants to Senior Inspector, only after completing of three years service in the cadre of Assistant.

9. The learned Additional Advocate General has also tabulated in the counter statement about the overlooking of certain persons on account of not completing three years service. For ready reference, paragraph 13 of the counter statement is extracted hereunder:- “13.It is submitted that from the year 1995 to 2000, 86 Personnel were given Promotion from Assistants to Senior Inspector following the said Procedure. From the year 2010 to 2015 the following are the details about the number of persons promoted and deferred for the post of Senior Inspector.

S.No. Year No.of Assistants Promoted as Senior Inspector Deferred Persons Reason for Deferred

1. a). 4-1.Thiru.A.Syed Ajaz,

2. Anantha Rebecca,

3. Thiru.P.Venkatesan

4. Tmt.D.Gandhimathi (Not completed 3 years of service in Assistant) b).1-Thiru.M.Aathimoolam (17(b) charges pending) c).1-Tmt.M.Savithiri (Cooperative training not completed)

2.

a) 3 – 1.Tmt.M.Savithiri

2. Thiru.O.K.Preman,

3. Thiru.M.Sivakumar (Cooperative training not completed)

b) 1 – Thiru.P.Jayavel (Not completed 3 years of service in Assistant)

c) 1-Thiru.M.Sundaresan (Petitioner) (Not completed Bhavani Sagar Training in Assistant and so, the service is not regularized in the Post of Assistant)

3.

a) 1-Tmt.M.Savithiri (Cooperative training not completed)

b) 2-1.Thiru.M.Sundaresan (Petitioner)

2. Thiru.M.Sivakumar (Not completed 3 years of service in Assistant)

10. Therefore, it is amply clear that as a matter of a policy, the Head of Department has formulated the eligibility criteria. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Rule has been wrongly applied to the petitioner selectively.

On the other hand, the respondent has demonstrated that the eligibility criteria has been consistently followed from 1995. If any criteria has been followed consistently for a considerable period of time, it will have a force of Statute. Therefore, in such circumstances, when the petitioner has not completed three years service in the post of Assistant on the crucial date viz., on 01.05.2015, his claim for consideration for promotion in 2015 panel is illegal.

11. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court could not find any merits in favour of the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI To

1. The Secretary To Government Animal Husbandry, Dairying And Fisheries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Director For Milk Production And Dairy Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai-600 051.

3. The Deputy Milk Commissioner (cooperation) Office Of The Commissioner For Milk Production And Dairy Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai-600 051.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 6201 of 2024 AND WMP NO. 6874 OF 2024 08-10-2026