STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S. SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra-Court Appeal had been preferred by the State as being aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of the first respondent dtd. 20/10/2012 and further directing the appellants to prepare a panel in terms of G.O.Ms.No.368, for arriving at the vacancies and promote such persons, who fall within the zone of consideration during the relevant point of time.

(2.) Heard Ms.M.Sneha, learned Special counsel appearing for Health and Family Welfare Department and Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) The learned Special counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the panel for the year 2000-01 was drawn with a crucial date for arriving at a panel on 15/2/2000. On the said date, the respondent herein was not qualified to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director, as he had acquired the requisite qualification to the said post only on 11/10/2000. She would submit that a panel was drawn by taking into account the retirement vacancy, promotional vacancy, the likely promotions and leave reserve vacancy during the panel year i.e., from 16/2/2000 to 15/2/2001. The respondent herein as being aggrieved against the drawl of panel in respect of three vacancies, had made a representation that the vacancies, which were likely to be made available due to the promotion of the serving Deputy Directors as Joint Directors of the Department should not be made. According to him, such number of vacancies ought not to have been included in the panel for the year 2000-01 as it goes against the guidelines issued by the Government under the G.O.Ms.No.368. She would submit that for the panel for the year 2000-01, a panel of serving Deputy Director fit for promotion to the post of Joint Director was also drawn and in that said panel, three Deputy Directors' names were included. Since the said panel was also drawn, the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Director had also included, the said three likely vacancies, which were subject to the final orders of promotion. The said aspect has also been explained in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the Writ Petition. but however without considering the same, the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that there was no materials placed before him to convince that the G.O.Ms.No.368 had been scrupulously followed and on that ground, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order in rejecting of the claim of the respondent and had inter alia issued the direction to redraw the panel in terms of G.O.Ms.No.368.