Read Order:S.Jayashankar Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Sugar And Ors 

Tulip Kanth

Chennai, May 28, 2022: Directing that the name of the petitioner be considered for inclusion in the provisional seniority list of Superintendent for promotion to the post of Office Manager as on April 1, 2021, the Madras High Court has opined that the authorities must consider the names of all the eligible persons aspiring to secure promotion in accordance with the rules and in the order of seniority.

On the law relating to promotion, the Bench of Justice S.M.Subramaniam asserted, “Promotion per se cannot be claimed as a matter of an absolute right. All promotions are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules in force. However, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee.”

The factual scenario of this case was such that the petitioner was appointed as Clerical IV in 1992. His services were regularized by the official respondent in but because of an error with reference to the designation of the writ petitioner, the petitioner was placed in Clerical III Grade. Later, the writ petitioner was retrospectively promoted to the post of Superintendent with effect from May 25,2017. 

The relief sought in the writ petition was to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner before confirming the Provisional Seniority list for the post of Office Manager by considering the petitioner’s representation.

According to Justice Subramanian, the petitioner was actually serving as Superintendent for the past 7 months. However, he was retrospectively granted promotion in the post of Superintendent from May 25,2017 onwards. The error crept in respect of the service of the petitioner was rectified and consequently, the petitioner was retrospectively promoted with effect from the year 2017. Therefore, considering the retrospective promotion granted, the Bench held that the writ petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of further promotion.

Clarifying that the petitioner became eligible for inclusion of his name in the panel by completion of three years from May 25,2017 and this was in accordance with the Common Service Rules, the High Court ruled that when the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent retrospectively with effect from May 25,2017, so the said date is to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority. Accordingly, the petitioner was held to be eligible for inclusion of his name in the panel.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment