No 2005 Panel, No District Junior Promoted: Madras HC Rejects Revenue Official’s Backdated Promotion Claim

The petitioner, a Superintendent, sought inclusion in the 2005 panel for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar, followed by consequential promotions and service benefits. He contended that his exclusion resulted from a charge memorandum dated 6 June 2008, which was later quashed in W.P. No. 22369 of 2009.

The respondents stated that the Civil Supplies Department had sent a nil panel and that the petitioner was not recommended because charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were pending. They also relied on other pending charges and the Government’s rejection of his request.

The petitioner challenged the Government Order dated 14 June 2019 and the nil panel dated 1 April 2011.

The Court also noted that, in an earlier writ petition, the petitioner had sought a different relief concerning consideration for the post of Administrative Officer, but had not sought the present relief.

The Court applied the principle that promotion is not a matter of right, although consideration for promotion is; however, it held that no consideration for promotion arose here because no panel had been prepared and no junior had been promoted over the petitioner.

It relied on Section 7(1) and Section 7(5), Part II, of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, including the provision concerning consideration of punishments and charges, to conclude that pending charges must be considered when a panel is prepared and that Rule 17(b) charges bar inclusion in the approved list in the circumstances addressed by the Court.

It distinguished Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh, 2000 Supp (3) SCR 69, because that case involved a prepared panel and deferred promotion due to a pending charge, unlike the nil-panel circumstances here.

The Court also applied Order II Rule 2 CPC, holding that the present claim was barred because the petitioner had not sought it in his earlier proceeding despite having the opportunity to do so.

The Court found that the petitioner’s case for retrospective promotion could not succeed merely because the earlier charge memorandum had been quashed: the relevant authority had prepared no 2005 panel, and the petitioner identified no junior from his own district who had been promoted over him.

It therefore distinguished Delhi Jal Board, where a panel existed but promotion was deferred.

The Court further held that pending Rule 17(b) charges were relevant under the applicable State service provisions when considering inclusion in a panel.

Independently, it found the writ petition barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC because the petitioner had omitted the present relief from his earlier writ petition.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.