Court Cannot Step Into Executive’s Shoes & Issue Directions For Promotion Overriding Other Similarly Placed Individuals Awaiting Promotion: Madras HC
|The Madras High Court observed that it cannot step into the shoes of the Executive and issue a direction for promotion overriding other similarly placed individuals also awaiting promotion.
The Court upheld the decision of the Single Bench which upheld the reversion of the appellant from the post of Sanitary Supervisor back to the post of Water Supply Pump Operator. The Court observed that the appellant’s current position did not qualify him for promotion to Sanitary Supervisor under the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment (Qualification and Recruitment of Office Assistants) Rules, 1988 (Regulations).
A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Poornima observed, “If vacancy arises in the post of Junior Assistant to be filled through promotion and if the appellant is eligible, then we do not find any reason why the official respondents would deny him that opportunity. As on date, that promotional avenue had not yet arisen. The Court cannot step into the shoes of the Executive and issue a direction for promotion of the appellant overriding other similarly placed individuals, who also awaiting promotion. They all have to be considered in accordance with the vacancy which arise.”
Advocate A. Maheswaran appeared for the appellant, while Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan represented the respondents.
The appellant had joined the Town Panchayat Services in the year 1987, while his services were regularised in 2006.
It was contended that the appellant who was working as Water Pump Operator had been correctly promoted as Sanitary Supervisor and wrongly reverted back.
However, the respondents submitted that the appellant was wrongly promoted and on realising that mistake, he was correctly reverted to his original post. It was pointed out that there was reversion from the promotional post of all individuals who had been similarly promoted.
The High Court noted the appellant’s contention that the cardinal principle of service jurisprudence was that there should be a promotion avenue for every Government servant and there cannot be stagnation throughout the period of service.
Even though the appellant raised a plea that some promotion should be granted to him as he had been languishing in the post right from the time when he joined, the Court observed, “But, unfortunately, we also have to consider those who are similarly awaiting promotion and who are working in the actual feeder post and who are alone eligible for promotion. The promotion avenue available for the appellant is to be promoted as Junior Assistant. He cannot be so promoted overlooking the credentials of his seniors. The said promotion will have to be done only on the seniority basis.”
Consequently, the Court held, “We are afraid that we cannot interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had very correctly observed that the post in which the appellant is now employed is not the feeder category for the promotion to the Sanitary Supervisor/Sanitary Maistry. Therefore, in view of that particular fact, which fact cannot be disputed or denied, we hold that the appeal filed by the appellant herein will necessary have to suffer an order of dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: M. Palanisamy v. The Director of Town Panchayats & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:3620)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates A. Maheswaran and R. Kathiresa Perumal
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan; Advocates M. Senthil Ayyanar and AN.Ramanathan