P KANDASAMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had stated that he was appointed in the Revenue Department as a Junior Assistant. Subsequently, on 9.3.1988, the petitioner was posted to the Commercial Taxes Department as a Junior Assistant. THE petitioner was superseded for promotion by the impugned proceedings, dated 29.12.1993. THErefore, the petitioner had made a representation on 17.2.1994. THE second respondent, by his letter, dated 8.4.1994, had informed the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the petitioner was not considered to be included in the list of Assistants for the year 1993, on merits. However, no reasons were given as to why the petitioner was not considered. On 18.4.1994, the Assistant Commissioner, had informed the Commercial Tax Officer, at Chengalpattu Assessment Circle, that the petitioner was not considered in the list of Assistants for the year 1993, on merits. Even though the Commercial Tax Officer was requested to communicate the information to the petitioner, it was communicated only, on 23.1.1995. THEreafter, on 22.3.1995, ten other persons, who were juniors to the petitioner, were selected as Assistants for the year 1994. It was stated that the name of the petitioner was considered for inclusion in the panel and the decision was deferred, in view of the results awaited from the Crime Branch C.I.D. Chengalpattu-MGR East District, in C.C.No.1 of 1994, under Sections 465 and 416 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE petitioner has further stated that in the year 1992, the petitioner had requested for being transferred to Salem Division and the concerned authority had requested the petitioner to produce a No Objection Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, since Division-wise seniority had been maintained.

(3.) A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner.