A.DURAISINGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as Office Assistant in the Commercial Taxes Department on 1.5.1971 and, thereafter, over the period of time, was promoted as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in the year 2007. While functioning as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the said post was upgraded as Commercial Tax Officer from the year 2008. It is the further averment of the petitioner that pending litigations, panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner was not drawn for the years 2007 and 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that for drawal of panel for the year 2009, the crucial date for inclusion of name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner was fixed as 1.1.09. It is the further case of the petitioner that he reliably came to know that his name was not included in the panel for the reason that he has not completed two years of service in Assessment Service. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner fell short by 21 days on the crucial date fixed, whereas, on the date of drawal of panel, the petitioner had completed more than

(2.) years and 5 months service and, therefore, the name of the petitioner ought to have been included in the panel for promotion. It is the further case of the petitioner that another person junior to him, who had similarly not completed 2 years in Assessment Service, the Government had granted necessary relaxation, which treatment had not been meted out to the petitioner. Though the petitioner submitted representation in this regard, however, no orders have been passed by the respondents on the said representation. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner has been denied inclusion of the name in the panel for promotion in the year 2009. Though on the crucial date, i.e., 1.1.09, the petitioner fell short by 21 days in the qualifying service, however on the date when the panel was drawn, the petitioner had completed the required service and, therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fault lies with the respondents, as they have not posted the petitioner in the Assessment Circle, so as to enable him to complete the period of two years, as is required for consideration of the name during the relevant time. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had failed to join the Assessment Service, when he was posted there. Therefore, the non-completion of the requisite qualifying service on the crucial date cannot be put against the petitioner to deny him the benefit of promotion to which he is duly entitled to. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in S.Sasisivanandam - Vs - District Collector, Thoothukudi District & Anr. (2012 (1) MLJ 634).

(3.) Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, referring to the counter, submitted that it is not mere shortfall in the requisite qualifying service in a stream that has been the cause of non- consideration of the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, on the crucial date had also crossed 57 years of age and, therefore, the name of the petitioner was not considered. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that during the previous years, viz., 2007 and 2008, pending litigation, panel for Assistant Commissioners were not drawn, and, therefore, persons who had crossed the age of 57 years were also considered for promotion in the panel to be drawn for the year 2009. However, on the crucial date, i.e., 1.1.09, for drawing the panel for the year 2009, the petitioner not having completed 2 years of in the Assessment Service and also having crossed 57 years of age, his name was not considered for inclusion in the panel.