S.RAJARETHINAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed, seeking for directions to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representations, in the light of the judgments of this Court dated 27.11.2014, in WA Nos.2583 of 2012 etc., in the case of S.Abdul Salam Sahib Vs. K.Parameshwari and R.Govindasamy Vs. Chief Engineer reported in 2014 (1) MLJ 562.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners joined as Junior Assistant and they are serving as Assistant Commissioner from the year 2010. Their names were considered for promotion to the next higher post of Deputy Commissioner in the year 2015 and accordingly, included in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner for the year 2014 -2015, vide G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 10.03.2015. The said panel could not be operated, due to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3640, 7858 and 9926 of 2015, batch etc.,. Subsequently, the said interim order was vacated by the Hon'ble I Bench of this Court on 30.03.2016, by paving the way for effecting promotions based on the panel. However, both the petitioners were informed by the 2nd respondent that they would not be given promotion, due to the pendency of the charge memos issued against the petitioners on 18.02.2016 and 16.03.2015, respectively, i.e., after the crucial date for the promotion for the year 2015 namely, 01.01.2015 and much after inclusion of the name of the petitioners in the promotion panel drawn, under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. In this background, it is contended that when the names of the petitioners were included for the promotional post of Deputy Commissioner for the year 2014 -2015, vide G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 10.03.2015, no charge was pending against the petitioners. The said charge memos were issued on 18.02.2016 and 16.03.2015, respectively. Hence, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioners. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also relied upon the Judgments of this Court dated 27.11.2014, in the case of S.Abdul Salam Sahib Vs. K.Parameshwari (WA Nos.2583 of 2012 etc.,) and R.Govindasamy Vs. Chief Engineer reported in 2014 (1) MLJ 562. It is further submitted that when the names of the petitioners have already been included in the panel for the year 2014 -2015, the same cannot be interfered with, by issuance of any charge memo, i.e., much after the crucial date for promotion for the year 2015, i.e., 01.01.2015. Therefore, he has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners, in the light of the Judgments of this Court dated 27.11.2014, in the case of S.Abdul Salam Sahib Vs. K.Parameshwari (WA Nos.2583 of 2012 etc.,) and R.Govindasamy Vs. Chief Engineer reported in 2014 (1) MLJ 562.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents sought for a reasonable time to consider the same.