WP/22143/2023 of S.KRUPAKARAN Vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2012, whereas the crucial date for preparing the panel for the post of Tahsildar was 01.07.2012. However, the respondent denied even the notional promotion to the petitioner on account of the fact that the he had retired on 30.11.2012, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited vs K.Kalaiselvan, reported in 2025 Supreme (Mad) 2231, the judgments passed in W.A.No.930 and 931 of 2021 dated 14.06.2024 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge in M.S.Velusamy vs. R.S.Jeevarathinam, (W.P.No.22990 of 2001 dated 16.11.2010).

4. He would further contend that once the petitioner become eligible to be considered, merely because the petitioner had not served in the promotion post will not justify the act of the respondents in denying promotion. He also contends that since because there was a delay on the part of the respondents, the right of the petitioner cannot be lightly ignored and the petitioner’s right could be protected if he is notionally promoted to the post of Tahsildar as on the crucial date, namely, 01.07.2012, when the petitioner was in service. Hence, he prayed this Court to interfere with the impugned order and direct the respondents to provide notional promotion to the petitioner.

5. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader, who would submit that though the crucial date for preparing the panel for Tiruvallur District is 01.07.2012, the preparation of the panel was deferred till 31.12.2012 for the reasons that the District Administration has fully and continuously preoccupied with the preparation of list of Deputy Tahsildars for the years from 1996-2010, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8848 of 2008 dated 08.04.2009. He would further submit that according to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Rules, no specific proviso is prescribed for the inclusion of the retired employees in a panel for the current period. In the case in hand, though there was some delay on the part of the respondents in the preparation of the panel, the petitioner had already been retired by the time the panel was prepared. Therefore, as per Section 3(m) of the Tamil Nadu Government Service (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, a retired employee cannot be considered as a member of service. Consequently, the petitioner could not be included in the promotion panel. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side.

7. In the case in hand, there is no dispute with regard to the dates and events, but the only dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is that whether the petitioner can be deprived of a notional promotion since because there was a delay on the part of the respondents in preparation of the panel. In this regard, though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Geetha Mahadevan vs. The Secretary to Government and Others (W.A.No.930 & 931 of 2021), the facts in the said case is slightly different from the facts of the present case. According to Geetha Mahadevan, supra, the employee was considered for promotion and was subsequently promoted, however, before giving the posting order, he retired. In such circumstances, having a person has already been promoted since because no posting order was given while he was in service, it does not mean that he should not be considered for a notional promotion. Whereas, in the case in hand, the petitioner was not at all included in the promotion panel.

8. Similarly, in the judgment of this Court in K.Kalaiselvan, supra, the petitioner was already included in the panel, however, due to the intervention of election, he could not be promoted. In such circumstances, having the juniors were given notional promotions, the petitioner in that reported judgment was also considered for notional promotion. Therefore, those facts are also not applicable to the present case. Further, in M.S.Velusamy, Supra, the Hon’ble Single Judge following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd.Ahmed vs. Nizam Sugar Factory and Others, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 210. However, according to the above precedent, the employee had already challenged his promotion during his service and at the time of pronouncing judgment, he had retired. In such a background, the Court directed to give monetary benefits for that period. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that above propositions relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the present set of facts.

9. Admittedly, in the case in hand, no panel was prepared until the retirement of the petitioner on 30.11.2012, for which the respondents have stated that they were preoccupied with other administrative work. It is a well settled principle of law that seeking promotion is not a fundamental right, however, the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. But the employee cannot direct or expect from the employer that he should be considered at the relevant point of time. Though a duty is cast upon the employer to consider promotions within a reasonable time, in the present case, there is no abnormal delay on the part of the respondents in preparing the panel. It was only a matter of administrative deferment. In the meanwhile, unfortunately, the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2012. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader as per Section 3(m) of the Tamil Nadu Government Service (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, when the panel was prepared, the petitioner was not a member of service and consequently, he could not be considered for promotion so as to grant him a notional promotion. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

10. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 22-09-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No ham

To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai 09.

2. The Additional Secretary/ Commissioner, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 05.

3. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Collectorate Office, Tiruvallur.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. ham WP No. 22143 of 2023 22-09-2026