K HEMAVATHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that she was regularized in the post of Clerk, on 29.8.1966, and she had completed her probation, on 28.8.1968. She had passed the District Office Manual Test in the month of May, 1968, and she had passed Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part I in the month of May, 1970. Even though the petitioner was eligible to be promoted as an Assistant during the month of May, 1970, she was not promoted. During the year 1972, when promotions were being made to the post of Assistant, the petitioner was considered for such promotion and posting orders were approved for promoting her as an Assistant. However, no order was issued to her. On the other hand, one Ms.Janakipushkalambal, who was also given a similar promotion along with the petitioner was subsequently promoted. Further, some other persons who were junior to the petitioner were also promoted to the post of Assistant. Though the petitioner was the only person, who was qualified for promotion as an Assistant in May, 1970, she was not promoted as such, even during July, 1972. The reasons for not promoting the petitioner have not been made known by the respondents.

(3.) IT has been further stated that when a suitable vacancy had arisen within the Directorate of Employment and Training, she was promoted as an Assistant, on her own request and she had joined duty as such, on 5.5.1978. Again on her own request, she was granted conversion from Ministerial Service to Technical Cadre and posted as Assistant Training Officer (Stenography) in the Labour and Employment Department and she had joined duty as an Assistant Training Officer, (Stenography), on 30.6.1981 and served as such, upto 20.11.86. Later, on her request she was granted conversion to Ministerial Service and posted as an Assistant from 21.11.86. Therefore, there is no substance in the claim of the petitioner that she was granted promotion to the post of Assistant during the year 1972 and for revising the seniority in the post of Assistant and to place the petitioner above S. Balakrishnan. Further, it has also been stated that having known the fact that she had not been promoted as an Assistant, during the year 1972, she had neither appealed to the Director of Employment and Training, nor to the Government until the month of October, 1991, after a long delay of nearly 20 years. Therefore, the request was rejected by the Government in Government Lr.No.51414/P1/93-7, dated 22.3.1994. Thereafter, her appeal to the Government in her letter, dated 30.5.1994, was also rejected in Government Lr.No.34250/P1/94-2, dated 2.1.1995, stating that there were no valid reasons for entertaining her review petition. In such circumstances, there is no merit or substance in the case of the petitioner.