WP/10321/2015 of P.Ponnuvijayan Vs The District Collector on 21 September 2026

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government

Advocate appearing for the first respondent and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was initially appointed as an Office Assistant on compassionate ground with effect from 25.07.1991; that based on the executive instructions which were in vogue during the year 1992- 1993, provided for the dependants of the deceased panchayat union teachers seeking compassionate appointment to be appointed as Junior Assistants, he was appointed by the first respondent as Junior Assistant on 17.03.1993 as he had possessed the requisite qualification to hold the post of Junior Assistant.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that to hold the post of Junior Assistant in the Rural Development Department, the individual is required to pass the departmental examination consisting of five papers, namely, Sociology Part I, Village Swaraj Part II, Constitution of India and Miscellaneous Acts, Panchayat Act, 1958, and Rural Development Account Test; that he had passed all the departmental examination on 24.05.2000; that Rules 23 (a), 26 and 28 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules (for short “Rules”), requires an individual employee to pass the departmental examination within a period of five years from the date of entry into service; that he had passed the departmental examination after five years from the date of entry into service; that as the petitioner passed the departmental examinations after five years, the District Collector is not a competent authority to declare his probation in the cadre of Junior Assistant; that as per the Rules, relaxation by the Government by way of ratifying the passing of the departmental examination beyond five years from the date of entry into service was required; that though the petitioner passed the departmental examination in the year 2000, the Government took more than five years to issue the ratification order; that the ratification order was issued by the Government only on 31.08.2005 vide G.O.(1D).No.447, Rural Department (E-7 Department); that on issuance of the aforesaid G.O, the petitioner's probation was declared in the cadre of Junior Assistant with effect from 24.05.2000, i.e., the date of passing the departmental test.

4. The petitioner further contended that though his probation in the cadre of Junior Assistant was declared from 24.05.2000, his seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant has to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment ie., 17.03.1993; that in the mean time, the Government issued Government Order vide G.O.(2D).No.23 dated 31.03.2005 regularising the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant from 17.03.1993 after getting concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 12 years after being appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground; that on his services being regularized with effect from 17.03.1993 and his probation being declared with effect from 24.05.2000, he was promoted to the post of Assistant on 02.11.2005; that on account of his probation being declared with effect from 24.05.2000, his name ought to have been placed in the list for being promoted to the post of Assistant of the year 2002-2003, based on the feeder category seniority; and that it was only on account of the non-regularization of his services in time by the respondent, he was not promoted in the year 2002-2003 as is evident from the panel of Assistants published by the first respondent on 24.07.2002, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the name of the petitioner has not been included for the reasons that his services in the cadre of Junior Assistant was not regularized.

5. The petitioner also contended that on the respondent regularising his services from the date of his initial joining and also declaring his probation with effect from 24.05.2000, he had submitted a representation to the first respondent dated 31.10.2008 requesting to place him in the seniority list of Assistants for the year 2001 based on his seniority in feeder category; that on being appointed as an Assistant on 02.11.2005, he was posted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade – I only on 07.07.2008 and completed one year period in the Rural Welfare Officer Grade I only in the year 2009; that in order to be promoted as Extension Officer (re-designated as Deputy Block Development Officer), an incumbent has to serve for a period of one year in the cadre of Assistant and one year in the post of Rural Welfare Officer Grade – I; that the respondent included his name in the list of Deputy Block Development Officers for the year 2009-2010 and promoted him as Deputy Block Development Officer on 20.10.2009; that one Mahendran, the second respondent herein, who is junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant, was included in the list of Deputy Block Development Officers for the year 2008-2009 and was promoted to the said post on 31.08.2008, while the petitioner was promoted to the said post on 20.10.2009; that as the second respondent who is the immediate junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant having been promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer in August 2008, he had approached the respondent authority and submitted a representation to re-fix his seniority in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officer from the date when his immediate junior was appointed in the said post; and that the first respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 07.08.2014, rejected the representation of the petitioner for granting retrospective promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted, which action of the first respondent, it is contended is per se illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

6. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Sasisivanandam Vs. The District Collector, Thuthukudi District in W.P.No.16697 of 2007 dated 12.10.2011.

7. Counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent is filed.

8. The first respondent by the counter affidavit while denying the writ averments, contended that since the petitioner failed to acquire the test qualification within a period of five years from the date of his appointment as Junior Assistant, his probation has been extended till the passing of the required departmental test by obtaining the necessary relaxation; that on the petitioner passing the departmental test on 24.05.2000, the Government declared his probation vide G.O.Ms.No.447 dated 31.08.2005 with retrospective effect from the date of passing the departmental test; that on issuance of the aforesaid Government Order relaxing the Rules, which required an employee to pass the departmental test within five years, the respondent granted promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant in the year 2006; that as per the Rules, in order to be promoted to the post of Extension Officer/Deputy Block Development Officer, a staff member is required to have the qualification prescribed under the Rules; that the petitioner acquired the requisite service qualification in the post of Assistant for being promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer only in the year 2009; and that on the petitioner acquiring the service qualification, he was immediately promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2009.

9. The respondent further contended that the petitioner, after a long lapse of time, submitted a representation claiming that his seniority has to be revised on par with his junior, who by that time, was not working in the Coimbatore District and in view of the above, the respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner; and that the petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed the present writ petition.

10. The respondent by the counter affidavit also contended that the delay in regularising the service of the petitioner was on account of the petitioner failing to pass the departmental test within a period of five years from the date of his initial appointment on 17.03.1993, which required the District Collector to extend his probation and only after such an extension, the petitioner had passed the departmental exams on 24.05.2000 and thus, the delay in passing the departmental test resulted in a further delay in regularising the services of the petitioner and the declaration of his probation by the Government, by relaxing the Rules; and that on the Government issuing the necessary relaxation, not only the petitioner’s services were regularized but the petitioner’s probation was also declared from the date of his passing the departmental test and thereafter, the petitioner was also granted promotion to the post of Assistant which he joined in the year 2006.

11. The respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that in order to be promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, a staff member is required to work as an Assistant for a period of four years and acquire the service qualification of working as a Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I

for one year and as Assistant or Accountant for not less than one year in each post; that the petitioner had acquired his service qualification by working as Assistant and Rural Welfare Officer Grade - I only on 16.08.2009 and thus, the petitioner's name was included in the panel list for the year 2009-2010 for being promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer and was accordingly, promoted and joined the said post on 20.10.2009.

12. The respondent by the counter affidavit also contended that since the petitioner failed to fulfil his service qualification in the year 2008-2009, his name was not considered for promotion; and that his junior one Mr.Mahendran with whom the petitioner is seeking parity, on the ground that the said staff member is his immediate junior, was transferred to Tiruppur District in the mean time and as such, the petitioner’s seniority cannot be fixed on par with Mr.Mahendran, who continues to work in Coimbatore District; and that the petitioner has made the said claim after a long delay.

13. Contending as above, the respondent seek for dismissal of the writ petition.

14. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

15. Though the petitioner claimed that it was on account of the delay in the respondent declaring his probation, due to which he did not acquire the required service qualification for being promoted to the post of the Deputy Block Development Officer, it is to be noted that if only the petitioner had passed the departmental test within five years as mandated under the Service Rules, there was no need or necessity for the first respondent to grant relaxation by extending the probation of the petitioner till he passed the departmental test.

16. Further, the petitioner having passed the departmental test beyond the period permitted by the Service Rules ie., five years, cannot claim that on the day he has passed the departmental test, his probation is required to be declared, for the reason that the power to grant relaxation of the mandatory requirement to pass the departmental test within five years from the date of joining vests only with the Government; and that the Government having taken a decision in this regard in the year 2005, the petitioner cannot attribute or claim delay by the Government. If only the Government chose not to grant relaxation of Rules, the petitioner would have to be out of service. Thus, the petitioner being fully aware of the fact that he having failed to pass the departmental examination within the time provided under the Rules, is at the mercy of the Government, did not raise the issue of delay in regularising his services or declaring his probation at any time earlier.

17. It is only three years after the petitioner's probation is declared and his services being regularized from the date of joining and thereafter having been promoted to the post of Assistant, the petitioner submitted a representation for the first time on 31.10.2008 claiming for inclusion of his name and for redrawing the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant published on 28.02.2001, which was followed up by another representation dated 05.02.2009. However, on the respondent not taking any action thereon, the petitioner did not seek to assail the inaction of the respondent and allowed the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant as drawn on 28.02.2001 to attain finality.

18. It is only after a lapse of five years thereafter, four years after being promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer on 20.10.2009 and joining the said service, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.04.2013 to the Block Development Officer claiming that he should be placed on par with his junior Mr.Mahendran who was promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer on 31.08.2009. The said representation in turn was forwarded by the Block Development Officer to the first respondent/District Collector on 02.04.2013, who by considering the claim made thereunder and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner having acquired the service qualification required for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer only during the year 2009-2010 rejecting the said representation. Thus, the petitioner having been granted promotion on 10.08.2009 after acquiring the required service qualification of having to work as Assistant or Accountant for one year and Rural Welfare Officer Grade – I, after being promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 2006, it cannot said that the action of the first respondent to be illegal for the petitioner to feel aggrieved or agitated for him to approach this Court by the present writ petition.

19. Further, it is to be noted that on the petitioner's claim for seniority in the post of Assistant as on 28.02.2001 not being accepted and the petitioner having allowed the said seniority to become final, cannot on being promoted to the next higher level post seek parity with the second respondent by claiming that the second respondent to be his immediate junior in the post of Assistant. The fact that the petitioner's probation being declared only in 2005 with retrospective effect from 2000, and there being no challenge to the said seniority in the cadre of Assistant, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the second respondent, who had been promoted to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, after having acquired the requisite service qualification earlier than the petitioner.

20. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner, by the present writ petition filed at the fag end of his service, is seeking to unsettle the settled seniority from the year 2001 in the cadre of Assistant which is the feeder category to the next level of promotion i.e., Deputy Block Development Officer.

It is a settled position of law that the seniority list which had attained the finality should not be disturbed/unsettled normally as the same would have a catastrophic effect, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.Vincent Velankanni Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2642.

21. It is also equally settled position of law that a challenge to the promotion should be claimed within a reasonable time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of promotional benefit has held as under: “ 23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 475] , this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: (SCC p. 145, para 16) “16. … filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.”

24. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, but the said relief has to be claimed within a reasonable time. The said principle has been stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K.

25. In NDMC v. Pan Singh [(2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398] the Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.

26. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [(1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22] , wherein it has been laid down that: (SCC p. 154, para 2) “2. … A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.” .......28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court.”

22. As noted herein above, the petitioner having allowed the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant to attain finality, seeking parity with the second respondent in the post of Deputy Block Development Officer six years after he having been promoted to the said post, and at the fag end of his service, would only go to show that the petitioner had embarked upon an adventurous journey to unsettle settled issues namely seniority and promotion at this point of time. The petitioner by his own inaction, had allowed the grass to grow under his feet. The above being factual position, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the action of respondent in rejecting his representation, as such action initiated by the petitioner also suffers on account of delay and laches.

23. Accordingly, the present writ petition as filed is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dh To

1. The District Collector (PD Section), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

2. Mr.S.Mahendran Deputy Block Development Officer, Udumalpet Block, Tirupur District.

T.VINOD KUMAR, J. dh WP No. 10321 of 2015 21-09-2026