SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Vs. M PUGALENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present respondent No. 1 had filed O. A. No. 4755 of 1997 before the Administrative tribunal seeking for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (H. R. & c. E.) with effect from the date his junior was promoted as Assistant commissioner.

(2.) THE allegation of the applicant was to the effect that even though he was senior to such person, at the time of considering the question of promotion, the case of the applicant was ignored and he was denied promotion and only subsequently, he was promoted in the year 1996. THE prayer before the Tribunal was to the following effect: "it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records in G. O. Ms. No. 217, Commercial Taxes and religious Endowments Department, dated 18. 6. 1996 passed by the 1st respondent herein and direct the respondents herein to refix the seniority of the applicant and keep his name over and above his juniors and thus render justice. " THE basic allegation is to the effect that under the proceedings dated 18. 6. 1996, two of the juniors in the Department in which he was functioning as Executive Officer in the H. R. & C. E. had been promoted and the applicant was promoted only subsequently by order dated 4. 10. 1996.

(3.) IN our considered opinion, all these provisions of rule 39 must be read together. The provisions relating to temporary promotion has been incorporated in the Rules, obviously, with a view to tide over any emergency to fill up immediately any vacancy in a post. At the time of filling up of any post by temporary promotion, the Department may not be armed with the particulars of all officers eligible for such promotion and in the exigency of administrative requirement, some persons may be immediately promoted, so that, there is no disruption in the functioning of the higher post. IN fact, as per rule 39 (c), such person will continue to hold the higher post till a member of the service is regularly promoted. Rule 39 (d) is only an extension of the principles of Rule 39 (a) and 39 (c) and under Rule 39 (d), while considering the question of filling of the promotional post temporarily, the officer against whom the departmental proceeding is pending, may also be considered for temporary promotion. However, Rule 39 (d) does not confer any right on any person to be temporarily promoted. The question whether the post shall be filled up temporarily by promotion is obviously a matter of discretion by the higher authority. Therefore, in our opinion, the reliance placed by the tribunal on Rule 39 (d) is misconceived.