Madras High Court
WP/29236/2025 of G.GOPI Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL on 21 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-08-2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP.No.29236 of 2025
G.Gopi,
Office Assistant,
Principal District Court, Ariyalur.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
2. The Principal District Judge,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 26.07.2024, 31.01.2025 and 15.03.2025, submitted against the illegal promotions granted to the petitioner’s juniors, who were appointed in April 2018, were promoted as Junior Bailiff/Record Clerk vide proceedings A.No.44/2022 dated 29.04.2022 and A.No.08/2025 dated 04.01.2025 by the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur and pass orders on merits and promote the petitioner to the
Post of Junior Bailiff/Record Clerk by placing him in the appropriate seniority position based on his date of initial appointment/regularization, and fix his pay notionally from the date on which his juniors were promoted, with consequential monetary benefits.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.Usha Ramman
For Respondent(s):
Ms.V.Sasi
for Ms.B.Poongkhulali
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) The present writ of mandamus has been instituted directing the second respondent to consider the representations submitted by the writ petitioner on various dates against the promotions granted to the juniors of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Masalchi on 03.01.2018. The services of the writ petitioner were regularised with effect from 03.01.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as an Office Assistant with effect from 08.12.2021 and joined the Principal District Court, Ariyalur. The claim of the writ petitioner is that the posts of Watchman, Masalchi and Office Assistant carry an identical scale of pay and therefore, promotions to the post of Junior Bailiff/Record Clerk, as well as the post of Junior Assistant, are to be granted based on a common seniority list.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed by stating that the post of Masalchi, Watchman, Sweeper (Cleanliness Worker) falls under Category 44, 11 and 12 of Class IV of Tamil Nadu Basic Service (TNBS) Rules respectively and the qualification fixed for these posts are “Must be able to read and write Tamil” but the qualification for the post of Office Assistant is fixed as “a pass in 8th standard and the post of Office Assistant falls under category 5 of Class III of TNBS. As per Rule 3 of the TNBS Rules, appointments to the post of Office Assistant in Class III shall be made by way of direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from any other service or ‘by way of transfer from Class IV’. Further, as per the proviso to Rule 5(2)
(a) , transfer from a Class IV post like Masalchi/Watchman/Sweeper to the Class III post of Office Assistant requires a pass in VIII Standard and completion of probation or not less than 1 year service in a Class IV post. Moreover, the job nature of the two cadres varies vastly and the post of Masalchi, Watchman, Sweeper has no Public Holidays defined for the Government Servants and they are expected to work on all days, fulltime and eligible only for the compensatory off whereas the post of Office Assistant has no such restrictions.
4. This Court is of the considered view that when there are variations in the prescribed qualifications for appointment to the posts of Office Assistant and Masalchi/Watchman/Sweeper and when the posts fall under different Classes under the Service Rules, the question of claiming promotion based on a combined seniority does not arise at all. Therefore, promotions are to be granted to employees belonging to the same Class under the Rules and they cannot compare themselves to employees working in another Class where the qualifications prescribed for the post are distinct and different.
5. However, the respondents have already prepared a combined seniority list based on the classifications made under the Rules. As per the classification and amongst the Class of employees, a combined seniority list has been prepared to consider employees for grant of promotion based on seniority. Since preparation of seniority is based on the nature of the post and the Class under which that particular post is classified, there is no reason to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion, overlooking the names of other employees who are working in different categories.
6. Based on an erroneous interpretation of combined seniority, the writ petitioner was promoted and subsequently reverted, as a result of which, the salary paid to the petitioner is sought to be recovered. The petitioner is working under Class IV category and any recovery, at this juncture, would result in hardship. Therefore, the recovery of excess salary alone is set aside. Presently, the petitioner is working as an Office Assistant and the seniority has already been fixed as per the Rules in the combined seniority list published. If any excess salary is already recovered, the respondents are directed to refund the same to the writ petitioner within a period of twelve
(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the relief relating to the promotion of the petitioner is declined.
7. In the result, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 21-08-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Sni
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. Sni To
1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104.
2. The Principal District Judge, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. WP.No.29236 of 2025 21-08-2026