K. VIJHAY SAAI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

2026:MHC:4520
WP No. 20554 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 20554 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA010790622023}
AND
WMP Nos. 19937 & 19938 of 2023
K. Vijhay Saai
S/o. Krishnasamy Mudaliar,
Superintendent, Tambaram Zone,
Chennai - 47.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government Of Tamil Nadu
Represented By Secretary To Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Government Of Tamil Nadu,
Represented By Secretary To Government,
Public(special-a) Department, Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner Of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4. The Commissioner Of Civil Supplies,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5. The District Collector,
Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a writ of Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the First
Respondent herein in G.O. Ms. No.180 Revenue and Disaster Management
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4520
WP No. 20554 of 2023
Department Services Wing (SVR.3(2)) Section dated 14/06/2019 as well as the
NIL Panel drawn by the Selecting Authority dated 01.04.2011 and quash the
same and consequently include the name of the Petitioner in the city list of
Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2005 panel and consequently promote him as
Deputy Tahsildar with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior
i.e. 2005 and grant him all consequential promotion to the next higher post of
Tahsildar with effect from 19.11.2008 and Deputy Collector or the year 2011-
2012 with effect from 23.07.2012 and District Revenue Officer or the Year
2017 with effect from 02.02.2018 and to grant him all consequential service and
monetary benefits within limited time as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Jeevasiridharan
Additional Govt. Pleader For R1 To R5

ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the G.O.Ms.No.180
Revenue and Disaster Management Department Services Wing (SVR.3(2))
Section dated 14/06/2019 passed by the first respondent as well as the NIL
Panel drawn by the Selecting Authority dated 01.04.2011.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4520
WP No. 20554 of 2023
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner
is eligible to be promoted as Deputy Tahsildar even during 2005. However, on
account of the pendency of the charge memorandum dated 06.06.2008, his
name was not included. Hence, he filed a Writ Petition against the above charge
memorandum in WP.No.22369 of 2009, wherein this Court vide order dated
16.12.2009 has quashed the said charge memorandum. Therefore, it is his
submission that the only obstacle for him to be included in 2005 panel was the
charge memo dated 06.06.2008, which was subsequently quashed. Therefore,
the learned counsel would seek inclusion of his name as per 2005 panel and
seeking for a consequential benefits viz., promotion.
4.The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional
Government Pleader and he would contend that since Civil Supplies
Department initially sent a NIL Panel on 04.03.2011 and subsequently sent a
report stating that Thiru.K.Vijhay Saai, though qualified for the post was not
recommended due to pendency of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the charge memo dated
06.06.2008 has been dropped only during 13.12.2018. Though the Department
has sent a report for issuing appropriate orders on the petition given by the
petitioner on 09.10.2012, the Government has rejected the petitioner’s request.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4520
WP No. 20554 of 2023
He would further contend that from 2008 to till date, two more charges under
Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are still
pending against the petitioner. It is the further contention that the 17(b) charges
bar the inclusion of the petitioner in the panel for promotion. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the present Writ Petition.
5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6.The main ground urged by the petitioner is that, the petitioner is eligible
to be considered for promotion as per 2005 panel, and that the petitioner was the
only eligible person. However, on account of pendency of the charge memo, no
panel was prepared. According to the petitioner, since the charge memo was
subsequently quashed, he became entitled to be considered for 2005 panel.
Though such submission appears to be attractive, while considering the
respondent’s stand, they did not have any panel and it was only a NIL panel as
per the communication dated 01.04.2011. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioner would state that one junior has been promoted before him, it appears
that he is not from the very same District, but from a different district.
7.Coming to the seniority of Deputy Tahsildar, it must be construed based
upon District wise seniority, and that the petitioner cannot rely upon any
seniority with reference to the other Districts. Admittedly, the Department in
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4520
WP No. 20554 of 2023
which the petitioner was working had sent a NIL panel. Though subsequently
the charge was dropped in a writ proceedings in WP.No.22369 of 2009, the
same will in no way entail him to have a promotion in accordance with 2005
panel. If really there had been any panel prepared during 2005 and any juniors
had been promoted, then as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to have a promotion as prayed. Whereas in
the case in hand, the respondent-Authority did not prepare any panel and in fact,
it was a NIL Panel. Since there was a NIL panel and no juniors to the petitioner
was considered for promotion, considering the petitioner for promotion in 2005
panel does not arise.
8.It is well settled principle of law that the promotion is not a matter of
right. Whereas the consideration for promotion is a matter of right. However, in
the case in hand, since there was no panel for the year 2005, the question of
consideration did not arise at all. Furthermore, no juniors were promoted
overlooking the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot find any infirmity in
the impugned order. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the oft-quoted judgment in Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh reported in
2000 Supp(3) SCR 69, the same is distinguishable in which a panel was
prepared. But, in the above reported case, on account of pendency of charge
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4520
WP No. 20554 of 2023
memo, the promotion was deferred. In the case in hand, as already stated,
admittedly no panel was prepared.
9.Apart from that, Delhi Jal Board case [cited supra] is based upon the
Delhi Rule, whereas we are governed by the Tamil Nadu Government Servants
(Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, in which Section 7(1) deals about
“ Approved candidates” and II of Section 7(5) deals about the “Preparation of
Panel (For Promotion)”. In which under the heading “CONSIDERATION OF
PUNISHMENTS AND CHARGES”, the Rule mandates that, on the date of
consideration of Panel, if there is any pendency of charge the same must also be
taken into consideration. The charge under Section 17(b) become bar for
inclusion of his name in the approved list. In the case in hand, admittedly on the
date of preparation of second panel, there was 17(b) charges pending against
this petitioner. Therefore, the very contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner relying upon the Delhi Jal Board judgment is misconceived.
10.Apart from that, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner had
preferred the writ petition in WP.No.20103 of 2014, wherein this Court, vide
order dated 11.04.2023 directed the respondents to consider the petitioner in the
post of an Administrative Officer. Whereas, in the said writ petition having right
to claim the present relief, the petitioner has not at all sought for the same.
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4520
WP No. 20554 of 2023
Therefore, notwithstanding the merits of the matter, the present writ petition is
also liable to be dismissed as the same is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC.
11.Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMPs are also closed.
11-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
To
1. The Secretary To Government
Government Of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Secretary To Government
Government Of Tamil Nadu,
Public(Special-A) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner Of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4. The Commissioner Of Civil Supplies,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5. The District Collector,
Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )

2026:MHC:4520
WP No. 20554 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
WP No. 20554 of 2023
AND
WMP Nos.19937 & 19938 of 2023
11-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:58 pm )