V.VIJAYAKUMARASAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is to call for records of the 1st respondent letter (D).No. 62, dated 24.01.2014 and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to accord notional promotion to the petitioner from the date of the petitioner's claim namely 01.07.2010 with all consequential monetary benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed in the Transport Department as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade II on 15.11.1983 and subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner and posted at Erode on 13.06.2009. During the year 2010-2011, the second respondent sent a proposal to the first respondent on 24.07.2010, stating that the estimated vacancy for the post of Joint Transport Commissioner for the year 2010-2011 has been calculated as three and requested the 1st respondent to approve the same. The 1st respondent after considering the future posts, has estimated as five and communicated the same to the 2nd respondent in their order dated 06.01.2011. In the said estimated vacancy, the petitioner was listed at sl.no.2. The 2nd respondent has prepared a seniority list on 12.09.2011. In the said seniority list, the petitioner was placed at sl.no.2. Even though there is no ban by the Government for recruitment/promotion, the 1 st respondent, without any reason, has kept pending the promotion list till the superannuation of the petitioner i.e on 31.05.2014, which according to the petitioner is highly arbitrary, erroneous and improper. Hence, claiming notional promotion and other monetary benefits from the date of 01.07.2010, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent should have seen that when there is a clear cut vacancy arose between 2010-2011 as informed by the 2nd respondent, which has been subsequently enhanced to five as per proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 06.01.2011. The 1st respondent grossly erred in not taking any action based upon the proposal. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though the 2nd respondent had recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Transport Commissioner by observing that he is maintaining clean record of service, the 1st respondent had drawn a nil panel for the year 2010-2011, which is contrary to the very recommendation of the 2nd respondent dated 27.04.2010.