WA/962/2024 of M. Karunanithi Vs The State of Tamil nadu on 16 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ order dated 13.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.16266 of 2012 is under challenge in the present appeal.

2. The writ appeal is the appellant before this Court. The appellant seeks a direction to promote him to the post of Deputy Director (Personnel). The appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Manager in Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited (TAPCO) on 8.10.1987. TAPCO was closed and 139 employees under 16 categories were absorbed by the Government and all those employees were posted in the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department. The appellant was posted as Manager in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department. The grievance of the appellant is that the juniors in the post of Manager were posted as Administrative Officer and Deputy Director, denying his promotion.

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 06:00:58 pm )

WA No. 962 of 2024

3. In this context, it is relevant to point out that a Government Order is issued in G.O.Ms.No.91, Animal Husbandry Department dated 06.06.2000, wherein the TAPDCO employees were transferred to the Department of Animal Husbandry. The condition stipulated in the order of absorption in clear terms stipulates that, "seniority will be fixed below the seniority of the personnel of the Department of Animal Husbandry working on that date in that category."

4. Accordingly, the name of the appellant was placed last in the seniority list below the employees already working in the Department of Animal Husbandry. The claim of the appellant is that some of the juniors were promoted to the higher post of Administrative Officer and to the post of Deputy Director. However, the appellant has not produced any document to establish that his juniors were promoted overlooking him. Further, presuming that some of the persons promoted, the appellant could not able to establish that those employees were absorbed employees in the Animal Husbandry Department. In the absence of establishing the fact that the absorbed employees of the Animal Husbandry Department were promoted overlooking the appellant, the Court will not be in a position to entertain the claim of the appellant for grant of promotion. The appellant has not produced even a single document to

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 06:00:58 pm )

WA No. 962 of 2024

establish that even one of his junior was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer and Deputy Director.

5. In the absence of any such order and also non-impleading of his juniors so promoted in the writ proceedings will not be in a position to consider the claim of the appellant for retrospective promotion on par with the juniors. The writ Court also elaborately considered these aspects and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner / appellant, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is in consonance with the principles for grant of promotion. The appellant has not made out any acceptable ground for considering the relief sought for by him. Consequently, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 16-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 06:00:58 pm )

WA No. 962 of 2024

To

1. The Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9.

2. The Commissioner Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, No.571, Anna Salai, Saidapet Vaterinary Hospital Campus, Nandanam, Chennai 35.

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 06:00:58 pm )

WA No. 962 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. KST WA No. 962 of 2024 16-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 06:00:58 pm )