N RAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to promote and appoint the petitioner as D.I.G. of Prisons with effect from the date on which his junior, the second respondent herein was appointed pursuant to G.O.No.139 Home (Prisons) dated 30.01.1996, as D.I.G. of Prisons with all service and monetary benefits.) The petitioner was directly recruited to the post of Jailor in the year 1977. He was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Prisons in the year 1986. His name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Prisons in the year 1989 and he was actually promoted as Superintendent of Prisons on 01.12.1989.

(2.) ON 30.01.1996, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.139 Home (Prison I) Department dated 30.01.1996, ordering the promotion of certain Superintendents of Prisons as Deputy Inspectors General of Prisons. Contending that the second respondent was not even qualified and also happened to be a junior to the petitioner and that the petitioner's case for promotion was overlooked arbitrarily, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1746 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. ON the abolition of the Tribunal, the said Application has been transferred to this court in W.P.No.20459 of 2006.

(3.) IN my considered view, both the contentions raised by the respondents are legally untenable. INsofar as the adverse remarks are concerned, the first respondent has not even specified the dates on which the adverse remarks were entered and the kind of adverse remarks allegedly entered. Admittedly, those adverse remarks were never communicated to the petitioner. Entry of adverse remarks in the confidential records of a Government Servant, is not an empty formality to be kept as a close secret by the Government. They are intended to put a person on notice so that his performance over the period should improve. Since the first respondent has not communicated the alleged adverse remarks and also since no details of those adverse remarks are spelt out in the reply affidavit, the failure of the first respondent to promote the petitioner on the basis of the so called adverse remarks cannot be sustained. INsofar as the penalties of censure are concerned, it is seen from para 14 of the reply affidavit that those penalties related to the year 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992 and 1993. Under various Government Orders, the penalty of censure is to have currency for a period of one year only. Therefore, on the date of which the impugned orders of promotion were issued on 30.01.1996, the penalties of censure did not have currency. Consequently, the failure of the first respondent to promote the petitioner even on this score is legally untenable.