V RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner entered into service as Draftsman in the Survey and Settlement and Land Records Department. In course of time, he was promoted. During 1996, he was holding the post of Technical Officer and subsequently posted as Assistant Director of Survey (Drawing) and Assistant Director of Survey (Maps). One Baluswamy, was in-charge of the Office of Assistant Director of Survey (Drawings) and Assistant Director of Survey (Maps) during the year 1996 and he retired from service with effect from 31.7.1996 and the present petitioner was given full additional charge of the post of Assistant Director of Survey (Drawings) and Assistant Director of Survey (Maps) with effect from 1.8.1996. THE petitioner retired from service on 30.9.1998. THE grievance of the petitioner is that though he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Survey (Drawings) or to the post of Assistant Director of Survey (Maps), on account of non-preparation of the panel for the year July 1996 to June 1997 and even for the subsequent period, his legitimate expectation of being promoted to the promotional post of Assistant Director of Survey (Drawings) or to the post of Assistant Director of Survey (Maps) was belied on account of the indifferent attitude on the part of the appropriate Government in preparing the panel. Though representations had been made by the petitioner even during his tenure, no action was taken. As a matter of fact, recommendations had been made from time to time. But ultimately, such recommendation was not accepted on the ground that the petitioner had crossed the eligible age limit of 57 years and therefore, ultimately, the petitioner had to retire in the cadre of Technical Officer while still holding the post of Assistant Director of Survey (Drawing) and Assistant Director of Survey (Maps) as additional charges. THE Original Application filed by the petitioner having been rejected by the Tribunal, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) WE are not impressed with such submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the State Government for the following reasons.