W.A.No.2185 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2185 of 2022
and C.M.P. No.16300 of 2022
Dr.C.Selvakumar ..Appellant
vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by Principal Secretary to the Government,
Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Medical Education,
Directorate of Medical Education,
Medical and Family Welfare Department,
Chennai – 10. ..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 12.07.2022 made in W.P.No.4538 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2185 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 12.07.2022 recorded on W.P. No.4538 of 2022. This appeal is by the original writ petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant/ writ petitioner has submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition by learned single Judge, that too on the face of the decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court is erroneous and the same needs to be corrected in this intra-court appeal. It is noted that learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court extensively through the material on record, more particularly orders dated 27.06.2018 and 22.02.2019 and lastly the letter dated 14.02.2022 by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of learned single Judge of this Court (i) N.Murali and another v The Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts and other (W.P.(MD) No. 2649 of 2011 dated 15.03.212), (ii) S.Saraswathi and another v The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Department), Panagal Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2185 of 2022 Building, Saidapet, Chennai (W.P.Nos.40607 & 40608 of 2016 dated 24.11.2016) and (iii) F.Lawrence and another v The Director of Elementary Education and others (W.P.No.4695 & 4696 of 2017 dated 16.03.2017). It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and having considered the material on record this Court finds as under:
3.1 The matter pertains to promotion on the post of Associate Professor of Plastic Surgery. The writ petitioner was empanelled for the said promotion as communicated to him on 27.06.2018 (at Sl.No.3).
3.2 The writ petitioner, for his personal reasons, relinquished the said promotion on 02.07.2018 and the same was acknowledged by the State vide order dated 22.02.2019. The said relinquishment was for a period of three years.
3.3 The writ petitioner had approached this Court with the grievance that his name ought to have been included by the State in the promotion panel for the year 2020-2021. The writ petitioner had Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2185 of 2022 represented to the State that, his name ought to have been included in the promotion panel for the year 2020-2021, which the State rejected.
3.4 The petitioner therefore approached this Court with the following prayer:
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the herein in proceeding Ref. No. 67497 / E1 / 1 2021 dated 14.02.2022 and quash the same in so far as non inclusion of the name of the petitioner herein and clubbing of the vacancies pertaining to the panel year 2018-2019 as well as 2019-2020 and issue direction to the Respondent herein to either to include the name of the petitioner in the approved panel for promotion to the post of Associate Professor of Plastic Surgery for the year Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2185 of 2022 2020-2021 and to consequently promote him to the said post or in the alternative to directly promote him to the post in pursuance of his empanelment for the year 2017-2018 and to grant him all consequential benefits.” 3.5 Learned single Judge has rejected the petition inter-alia holding that the claim of the writ petitioner to include his name in the panel for the year 2020-2021 could not be entertained because of his relinquishment of promotion for a period of three years as contained in the order dated 22.02.2019, which was in response to the inclusion of his name in the panel vide order dated 27.06.2018.
3.6 The question before this Court is, whether the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner for inclusion of his name in the panel for the year 2020-2021 can be said to be erroneous in any manner, more particularly keeping in view the decision, which are sought to be relied by learned advocate for the appellant. Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2185 of 2022 3.7 We find that, relinquishment of the promotion by the writ petitioner was acknowledged by the State vide G.O.364 dated 22.02.2019. It would be unfair to count the period of three years from the date of said order, and not from the date of relinquishment. Therefore, the relinquishment would not expire after three years commencing from 22.02.2019.
3.8 The question is from which date that relinquishment should be taken into consideration. The said relinquishment was on 02.07.2018. The date of relinquishment may also be of less importance. It has necessarily to be related with the date of G.O. in which his name was included for such promotion. That date, in this case, is 27.06.2018. The writ petitioner could not have claimed for inclusion of his name in the promotion panel within three years from 27.06.2018 i.e 27.06.2021.
3.9 The crucial date of promotion, for the panel in which the petitioner wants his name to be included is in the month of March 2020. The period of three years under no circumstances can be termed to be over prior to 27.06.2021. If these two dates are kept in view, we Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2185 of 2022 find that, the rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the State, to include his name in the promotion panel in question can not be faulted with.
3.10 The rejection of the writ petition by learned single Judge, in this factual background, can not be said to be an error and therefore this appeal is not required to be entertained.
4.1 Coming to the next issue with regard to the orders of this Court, as relied on behalf of the writ petitioner, we find that though those orders are of learned single Judges of this Court, we have considered the same and if the facts of those cases are kept in view, the same will not take the case of the writ petitioner any further.
4.2 The argument on behalf of learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the panel prepared on 27.06.2018 is to be considered as the panel for the year 2017-2018. We are unable to read so, in that order, what is sought to be projected on behalf of the writ petitioner. Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2185 of 2022
5. In totality, we find that, rejection of writ petition, on facts, can not be said to be an error and therefore same need not be interfered with. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J) 23.09.2022 Index:No mmi/8 To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Medical Education, Directorate of Medical Education, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Chennai – 10.
Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2185 of 2022 PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi W.A.No.2185 of 2022 23.09.2022 Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis