K MURUGAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY mutual consent, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings in Ka.No.Ka.Pane 3/159584/2008 dated 10.8.2009 on the file of the respondent and consequently directing the respondent to include the name of the petitioner herein in the panel for the promotion for the post of Deputy Agricultural Officer.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the service in 1981 as Assistant Agricultural Officer in the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mayiladuthurai and subsequently transferred to various places and presently working in Modakurichi, Erode District. A promotion order dated 17.9.2004 was passed, promoting the petitioner as Assistant Seed Officer, but due to family situation the petitioner was not in a position to accept the said promotion on the ground that his son was suffering from certain ailments and the petitioner being the only guardian to take care of him. Accordingly, the petitioner has written a letter dated 3.5.2005 seeking for relinquishment of his promotion to the particular post viz., Assistant Seed Officer. THE said request of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer as per the proceedings of the Additional Director of Agriculture dated 13.10.2006. THEreafter the respondent herein prepared a panel in his proceedings dated 29.12.2007 for promotion to the post of Deputy Agricultural Officer from the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer. As the petitioner's name was not included in the above said panel, the petitioner enquired and came to know that he was permanently barred for promotion.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel pointed out that the respondent stated in the counter that the case of the petitioner is only a reversion and not relinquishment and that the said reversion is a permanent one. It is contended that the said statement is patently wrong. It is further contended that, as per rule 29 of the Tamilnadu Government Fundamental Rules, the department namely the respondent herein cannot pass any order to the effect of permanent reversion. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondent placed reliance on the provisions under Rule 47 of Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and Rule 15(a) of the Tamilnadu Government Fundamental Rules and both these provisions are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is contended that Rule 47 deals in respect of relinquishment of rights by members and Rule 15(a) deals in respect of transfer and as such both the provisions cannot be relied by the respondent, as in the instant case, the claim of the respondent is that the reversion of the petitioner is on a permanent basis. THErefore it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and as a result, the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Agricultural Officer.