B.GOVINDARAJAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before retirement on superannuation on 31.07.2006, the petitioner worked as Deputy Director in Local Fund Audit Department, Chennai. About 1= months prior to the date of his retirement, he submitted a representation dated 15.06.2006 to the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tamil Nadu claiming promotion as Joint Director with retrospective effect from 01.11.2005. As no order was passed on the said representation till he retired on 31.07.2006, the writ petitioner filed a previous writ petition in W.P.No.24472 of 2006 on the file of this Court praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2006 and pass appropriate orders. The said writ petition came up before Hon'ble Justice P.Jyothimani, who disposed of the same on 02.08.2006 by issuing a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Finance Department to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2006 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the said representation of the petitioner was considered by the Government and by an order dated 06.06.2007, the Government rejected the request of the petitioner for retrospective promotion as Joint Director. The order was issued in a letter bearing Letter No.43105/LF/2006 dated 06.06.2007.

(2.) Aggrieved by and challenging the same, the writ petitioner has again approached this Court with the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned order dated 06.06.2007 and quash the same and to issue a direction to the respondents to confer all the benefits to the petitioner as a Joint Director of Local Fund Audit Department.

(3.) The prayer of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have contended that there was no irregularity in preparation of the same for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director and the petitioner's claim to be promoted as Joint Director on the premise that two persons holding the posts of Joint Director had to be deputed to the universities for being appointed as Finance Officers was far fetched and that the claim of the petitioner that the expected vacancies in the post of finance officers of the Universities should have been taken into consideration for preparation of the panel for promotion to the cadre of Joint Directors was baseless since the Local Fund Audit Department cannot take into account those posts in calculating the vacancy position because it was entirely in the hands of the Syndicate of the concerned University either to appoint or not to appoint a person whose name shall be found in the panel submitted to the University for consideration. It has also been contended therein that the representation made by the petitioner was considered properly and it was rightly rejected by the impugned order holding that the petitioner had not made out a case.