B.KANCHANA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as typist on 4.3.84 at Peramanallur, Tiruvannamalai and joined the post on 24.3.84 and presently, the petitioner is working as Assistant in the office of the Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Nemili. It is the case of the petitioner that though she has qualified herself for promotion to the cadre of Assistant with effect from 12.1.94, however, her name has not been considered, while juniors to her have been promoted. In this connection the petitioner made a representation to respondents 1 and 2 claiming promotion on par with her juniors. On such representation, the case of the petitioner was considered and she was promoted as Assistant on 4.1.95. Joining the said post, the petitioner immediately submitted another representation to respondents 1 and 2 requesting them to advance her promotion to the said cadre on par with her juniors to which the 1st respondent vide his proceedings dated 12.2.96 informed her that her request for advancement of promotion on par with her juniors and her seniority would be considered when her services are being regularised. Inspite of several representations time and again by the petitioner, the matter stood at the same stage and her case was not considered. However, after a lapse of 15 years, the 2nd respondent, vide his proceedings dated 11.11.10 rejected the request of the petitioner citing Rule 35 (f) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that the delay is attributable only to respondents 1 and 2 and not to her as her repeated requests were not considered in proper perspective. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to move this Court by filing the present petition.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the submissions as raised in the grounds in support of his plea and vociferously contended that the delay on the part of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not considering the petitioner's representation in proper perspective and passing appropriate orders cannot be put against the petitioner to nullify her claim. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation in proper perspective and pass appropriate orders advancing her promotion and also refixing her seniority on par with her juniors.

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, while sought to sustain the impugned order, however, submitted that this Court may direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, uninfluenced by the delay, in accordance with law within a particular time frame.