WP/39959/2026 of G.Sarala Vs The Registrar General on 2 November 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.) The petitioner herein, who was working as Head Clerk in the Sub Court, Villupuram, was assessed for promotion to Category-II from Category III, along with other eligible candidates, by the promotion committee constituted by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

2. The promotion committee, after assessing their performance had identified petitioner and three others as persons who have no exposure on criminal and civil procedure and, therefore, they must be given training for six months before considering for the promotion.

3. Insofar as few other candidates were concerned, based on their exposure on civil and criminal sides, the committee recorded they need further training and had temporarily promoted them with the condition that they must undergo training for 15 days in criminal side, while few must undergo training in civil and criminal sides for three months and, thereafter, there will be reassessment of their performance, if they failed to improve, they will be reverted back. Page Nos.2/8

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order deferring her promotion for six months to get themselves trained and equipped on the civil and criminal sides and the order promoting few others that they have to undergo training for three months and only if they failed to improve, they will be reverted is discrimination. The promotion committee assessment about the exposure and knowledge in civil and criminal sides, ought not to have deprived the promotional opportunity of the petitioner herein by deferring her candidature for assessment for six months and for others it was only for three months.

5. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner herein initially joined as a Junior Bailiff on 09.12.1996 and thereafter gradually promoted to various posts from time to time. In the year 2023, while she was working as a Head Clerk in the Sub Court, Villupuram, dealing with M.C.O.P cases, a promotion committee was constituted by the Principal District Judge and the performance of the eligible candidates was assessed by the Committee.

6. A detailed report was submitted by the Committee after assessing their capacity as an individual to hold the promotional post. Accordingly, based on the assessment, it was found that those who lack knowledge in criminal and civil proceedings must undergo adequate training to cope with their lack of Page Nos.3/8

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026 knowledge. In the said process, the petitioner was found short of exposure on civil and criminal sides was not considered for promotion. However, it was decided that her candidature will be considered after six months, on her undergoing training in civil and criminal sides.

7. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the counter affidavit reads as below:- “(4). I further submit that the name of the petitioner, along with the names of other staff members in the cadre of Head Clerk Category-111, was forwarded to the Promotion Committee for assessment of their suitability for promotion to the higher post. Accordingly, the Promotion Committee, after assessing the petitioner on 09.10.2023, opined that she was not fit for promotion at that stage, as she did not possess adequate knowledge of Civil and Criminal Procedure. The Committee also recommended that her suitability for promotion could be reassessed at a later stage. 'Thereafter, the petitioner was given another opportunity and her suitability for promotion was reassessed by the Promotion Committee along with the other eligible staff members. Upon such reassessment, the Committee submitted its report dated 19.01.2024, stating that the petitioner did not possess adequate knowledge in the Civil and Criminal side and that there was no appreciable improvement in her performance when she appeared before the Committee. Based on the recommendation of the Promotion Committee, the then Principal District Judge, Villupuram, Page Nos.4/8

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026 concurred with the said recommendation and deferred the petitioner's promotion to the higher cadre, as she did not possess adequate knowledge in the Civil and Criminal side. She was directed to undergo training in both Civil and Criminal subjects, and it was ordered that her suitability for promotion would be reconsidered after a period of six months, vide this office Official Memorandum in D.No.769/2024, dated 23.01.2024.

(5) I further, submit that the petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 06.02.2024 to this office through the Special Sub Judge No.Il to deal with MCOP Cases, Villupuram, stating that she had suffered on account of her name being skipped at the time of promotion and that her junior had been promoted as Head Clerk Category-11. She also stated that, during the period from 18.02.2023 to 26.01.2024, she had properly attended to all the duties relating to the Sherishtadar, in addition to her day-to-day duties as Head Clerk, including preparation of the Bank Reconciliation Statement. The said application of the petitioner was duly perused and was returned to her vide this office Official Memorandum in D.No,3386/2024, dated 30.04.2024 (A.No.179/2024, dated 30.04.2024).”

8. The Learned Standing Counsel representing the second respondent further submitted that the petitioner herein was later promoted as Sheristadar vide Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2025. The promotion to the higher post Page Nos.5/8

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026 done in accordance with the assessment made by the promotion committee and only persons who satisfied the required criteria of work performance and credibility were promoted.

9. We find that a fair assessment of performance and due opportunity to get promoted after getting training cannot be faulted. The tenure of getting trained in the respective field will naturally differ person to person and that can be assessed only by the promotion committee, who had personal interaction with the candidates. In this case, one set of officers were expected to undergo 15 days of training and another set was expected to undergo three months training, (i.e.) the petitioner and three others were expected to undergo six months training. The said assessment of the promotion committee cannot be reassessed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (E.MANOHARAN, J.) 02-11-2026 Index :Yes/No. Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet :Yes. Neutral Citation :Yes/No. bsm Page Nos.6/8

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026 To,

1. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras - 104

2. The Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

3. The Special Sub Judge-I, The Special Sub Judge II (FAC), The Special Sub Court No.II, (to deal with M.C.O.P. Cases), Villupuram. Page Nos.7/8

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026 Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. bsm W.P.No.39959 of 2026 02-11-2026 Page Nos.8/8

( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )