M RAJENDRAN Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed, the first one for a mandamus to dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 26.4.2018 and 21.6.2018 in relation to his claim of promotion, and the second one to quash the order dated 5.3.2019, by which the petitioner had been informed that another representation filed by him on 7.1.2019, during the pendency of the first writ petition, was considered by the Promotion Committee in detail on 25.2.2019 and rejected. The resolution of the Promotion Committee dated 25.2.2019 is extracted herein under: "The representation of Thiru. M.Rajendran, Deputy Registrar (Current Section) has already been rejected on 01.11.2018. he has again given a representation for considering him for promotion to the next higher post of Joint Registrar. In view of the earlier rejection of the representation, the Committee decides to reject the repetitive representation made by him on 07.01.2019. He may be informed accordingly. The filing of repeated representation by the employees of the High Court for the same cause is deprecated by the Committee. The Committee was informed that the practice of giving promotion to the next higher post against the vacancy created by temporary leave taken by the incumbent of that post has been discontinued since 2015, therefore, promotion against such vacancies arising on account of the temporary leave taken by the person incumbent, just for securing the enhanced retirement benefits is not permissible."

(2.) The order dated 5.3.2019, by which the petitioner was informed of the rejection of the representation dated 7.1.2019 is extracted herein under: "Thiru. M.Rajendran, formerly Deputy Registrar (Current Section), High Court of Madras, Chennai, retired on superannuation on 28.02.2019 A.N., in his representation cited, has requested to consider him for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar to have enhanced terminal benefits as he was due to retire on 28.02.2019 on superannuation. The request of Thiru. M.Rajendran was considered and the same has been rejected. The Officer is informed accordingly. The receipt of this Official Memorandum is required to be acknowledged immediately."

(3.) From the common counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court, it is evident that the petitioner had entered service as a Reader on 8.12.1988, and in the year 2011, considerations were made for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar. The petitioner came to be promoted as Librarian on 8.7.2011, and at that moment, the petitioner had not made any grievance with regard to his non-consideration for the post of Assistant Registrar.