K RAJACHANDRAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is for two reliefs one for seeking regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner from 16.03.1993 to 19.07.1993 as 'duty' period with all consequential benefits. THE second prayer made by the petitioner is to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture for the year 1998-1999, approved in G.O.Ms.No.84, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 05.05.1999, below Sl.No.1 and 1-A and above the name of the 3rd respondent and to promote him as such with retrospective effect from 20.05.1999 i.e., the date of promotion of his immediate junior/third respondent.

(2.) IT is considered by both sides that the first prayer of the petitioner seeking regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner from 16.03.1993 to 19.07.1993 as 'duty' period with all consequential benefits, were already granted by the respondent in G.O.[3D] No.4, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 20.07.1993. Therefore, this Court is to deal with second prayer made by the petitioner.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner, immediately after the acquittal order was passed in Cr.A.No.38/2001, dated 19.12.2001, made a representation to the Secretary. By order dated 08.01.2010, the Principal Secretary to Government has disposed of the petitioner representation 24.02.2002. Earlier, O.A.No.4740/99 filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Secretary to Government, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion for the year 1998-1999 and confer the same forthwith, came to be transfered to this Court and the same became W.P.No.40605/2006. In the meanwhile, the present writ petition came to be filed in the year 2004. When the writ petition in W.P.No.40605/2006 came up for consideration, this Court passed an order directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.02.2002 and pass orders taking note of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, on or before 30.06.2009. The 1st respondent, following the order passed by this Court, dated 22.04.2009, passed order dated 08.01.2010, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, declining to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Deputy Director of Sericulture for the year 1998-99. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that unless that order is challenged, the petitioner cannot persuade his remedy in the present writ petition. On that basis, prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.