G.Sarala vs The Registrar General,

W.P.No.39959 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN
W.P.No.39959 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012162892026}
G.Sarala,
D/o. Gopalan,
Plot No.1/292, Agri Nagar,
Master Plan Complex EX backside,
… Petitioner
Villupuram - 605 403
Vs.
1. The Registrar General,
High Court,
Madras - 104
2. The Principal District Judge,
Villupuram.
3.The Special Sub Judge-I,
The Special Sub Judge II (FAC),
The Special Sub Court No.II,
(to deal with M.C.O.P. Cases),
… Respondents
Villupuram.
Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to
nd
the proceedings of the 2 respondent in D.No.769/2024 dated 23.01.2024,
quash the same insofar as it denies the petitioner for the promotion based on the
seniority and consequently direct the respondents to include the petitioner by
placing her above her immediate juniors as prior to the date of impugned
proceeding with all consequential service, seniority, monetary and attendant
benefits and pass.
Page Nos.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.M.Ajay Kanna,
For Respondents: Mr.V.Vijay Shankar,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.)
The petitioner herein, who was working as Head Clerk in the Sub Court,
Villupuram, was assessed for promotion to Category-II from Category III, along
with other eligible candidates, by the promotion committee constituted by the
Principal District Judge, Villupuram.
2. The promotion committee, after assessing their performance had
identified petitioner and three others as persons who have no exposure on
criminal and civil procedure and, therefore, they must be given training for six
months before considering for the promotion.
3. Insofar as few other candidates were concerned, based on their
exposure on civil and criminal sides, the committee recorded they need further
training and had temporarily promoted them with the condition that they must
undergo training for 15 days in criminal side, while few must undergo training
in civil and criminal sides for three months and, thereafter, there will be
reassessment of their performance, if they failed to improve, they will be
reverted back.
Page Nos.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order deferring her promotion
for six months to get themselves trained and equipped on the civil and criminal
sides and the order promoting few others that they have to undergo training for
three months and only if they failed to improve, they will be reverted is
discrimination.  The promotion committee assessment about the exposure and
knowledge in civil and criminal sides, ought not to have deprived the
promotional opportunity of the petitioner herein by deferring her candidature for
assessment for six months and for others it was only for three months. 
5. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated
that the petitioner herein initially joined as a Junior Bailiff on 09.12.1996 and
thereafter gradually promoted to various posts from time to time. In the year
2023, while she was working as a Head Clerk in the Sub Court, Villupuram,
dealing with M.C.O.P cases, a promotion committee was constituted by the
Principal District Judge and the performance of the eligible candidates was
assessed by the Committee.
6. A detailed report was submitted by the Committee after assessing their
capacity as an individual to hold the promotional post. Accordingly, based on
the assessment, it was found that those who lack knowledge in criminal and
civil proceedings must undergo adequate training to cope with their lack of
Page Nos.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026
knowledge. In the said process, the petitioner was found short of exposure on
civil and criminal sides was not considered for promotion. However, it was
decided that her candidature will be considered after six months, on her
undergoing training in civil and criminal sides.
7. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the counter affidavit reads as below:-
“(4). I further submit that the name of the
petitioner, along with the names of other staff members in
the cadre of Head Clerk Category-111, was forwarded to
the Promotion Committee for assessment of their
suitability for promotion to the higher post. Accordingly,
the Promotion Committee, after assessing the petitioner
on 09.10.2023, opined that she was not fit for promotion
at that stage, as she did not possess adequate knowledge
of Civil and Criminal Procedure. The Committee also
recommended that her suitability for promotion could be
reassessed at a later stage. 'Thereafter, the petitioner was
given another opportunity and her suitability for
promotion was reassessed by the Promotion Committee
along with the other eligible staff members. Upon such
reassessment, the Committee submitted its report dated
19.01.2024, stating that the petitioner did not possess
adequate knowledge in the Civil and Criminal side and
that there was no appreciable improvement in her
performance when she appeared before the Committee.
Based on the recommendation of the Promotion
Committee, the then Principal District Judge, Villupuram,
Page Nos.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026
concurred with the said recommendation and deferred the
petitioner's promotion to the higher cadre, as she did not
possess adequate knowledge in the Civil and Criminal
side. She was directed to undergo training in both Civil
and Criminal subjects, and it was ordered that her
suitability for promotion would be reconsidered after a
period of six months, vide this office Official
Memorandum in D.No.769/2024, dated 23.01.2024.
(5) I further, submit that the petitioner thereafter
submitted an application dated 06.02.2024 to this office
through the Special Sub Judge No.Il to deal with MCOP
Cases, Villupuram, stating that she had suffered on
account of her name being skipped at the time of
promotion and that her junior had been promoted as Head
Clerk Category-11. She also stated that, during the period
from 18.02.2023 to 26.01.2024, she had properly attended
to all the duties relating to the Sherishtadar, in addition to
her day-to-day duties as Head Clerk, including
preparation of the Bank Reconciliation Statement. The
said application of the petitioner was duly perused and
was returned to her vide this office Official Memorandum
in D.No,3386/2024, dated 30.04.2024 (A.No.179/2024,
dated 30.04.2024).”
8. The Learned Standing Counsel representing the second respondent
further submitted that the petitioner herein was later promoted as Sheristadar
vide Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2025.  The promotion to the higher post
Page Nos.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026
done in accordance with the assessment made by the promotion committee and
only persons who satisfied the required criteria of work performance and
credibility were promoted.
9. We find that a fair assessment of performance and due opportunity to
get promoted after getting training cannot be faulted. The tenure of getting
trained in the respective field will naturally differ person to person and that can
be assessed only by the promotion committee, who had personal interaction
with the candidates. In this case, one set of officers were expected to undergo
15 days of training and another set was expected to undergo three months
training, (i.e.) the petitioner and three others were expected to undergo six
months training. The said assessment of the promotion committee cannot be
reassessed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (E.MANOHARAN, J.)
02-11-2026
Index :Yes/No.
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet :Yes.
Neutral Citation :Yes/No.
bsm
Page Nos.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026
To,
1. The Registrar General,
High Court,
Madras - 104
2. The Principal District Judge,
Villupuram.
3.The Special Sub Judge-I,
The Special Sub Judge II (FAC),
The Special Sub Court No.II,
(to deal with M.C.O.P. Cases),
Villupuram.
Page Nos.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )

W.P.No.39959 of 2026
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
E.MANOHARAN, J.
bsm
W.P.No.39959 of 2026
02-11-2026
Page Nos.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:34:25 pm )