G SETHUMADHAVAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 7. 11. 2002 made in O. A. No. 1339 of 1996 dismissing his application seeking retrospective promotion to the post of Extension Officer, Panchayat Union, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was originally appointed as Grama sevak, Grade II, which was re-designated as Rural Welfare Officer on 15. 4. 1960. He is a political sufferer as his father was a freedom fighter. The Rule issued in G. O. Ms. No. 2462 dated 16. 7. 1956 prescribes qualification for the post of Grama Sevak Grade I and Grade II for direct recruitment as well as for promotion. He was promoted as Grama Sevak Grade I on 18. 3. 1975. He was eligible for further promotion to the posts of Manager, Extension Officer, deputy Block Development Officer and Block Development Officer even from the year 1980. But he was not considered for further promotion only on the ground that he did not possess the minimum general educational qualification, namely, s. S. L. C. Inasmuch as he was granted exemption at the initial stage for appointment to the post of Grama Sevak Grade II and thereafter promoted as grama Sevak Grade I (Rural Welfare Officer) and since the exemption once granted will also be available for further promotion such as Extension officer, Manager, Deputy Block Development Officer and Block Development officer, for which the academic qualification is S. S. L. C. , he made number of representations, and as there was no response, he filed O. A. No. 6292 of 1995 before the Administrative Tribunal, and by order dated 16. 10. 1995, a direction was issued for disposal of his representation. Finally, his request was rejected on 30. 1. 19 96. Hence, he filed O. A. No. 1339 of 1996 before the administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, after finding that the applicant was lacking minimum qualification as prescribed, namely, a pass in S. S. L. C. , dismissed his application. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned government Advocate for the first respondent.