Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs K.Anbalagan on 7 July, 2021
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.17240 of 2019
(Heard through VC)
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Office at Panagal Maaligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015. .. Appellants
vs.
1.K.Anbalagan
2.A.Paul Raj
3.S.Manoharan
4.S.Antony Raj
5.S.Paranjothi
6.V.Thirumoorthy
7.V.Ramar
8.K.Sithu Rangan
9.M.Namburajan
10.C.Tamilazhagan
11.S.Kannadasan
12.P.Selvan
13.K.Jothi
Page 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
14.R.Appanasamy
15.D.Shanmugaraj
16.P.Natarajan
17.R.Sadaiyandi
18.P.Subramani
19.S.Gnanasambandam
20.C.Pandi
21.P.Selvendran
22.P.Selvam
23.P.Periyasamy
24.P.Mohan
25.P.Velupandi
26.S.Mari Pappu
27.T.Muniammal
28.G.Murugan
29.K.Gopal
30.M.Pandian
31.P.Kannian .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set
aside the order dated 22.11.2016 made in W.P. No.40881 of 2016.
***
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelagandan
State Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.T.Dharani
JUDGMENT
(delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The Government has filed the appeal against the order passed by
the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2016, directing the appellants to
include the name of the writ petitioners in the panel for the year
Page 2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
2011-2012 and promote them as Foresters from the date on which their
juniors were promoted on national basis.
2. The writ petitioners were originally appointed as Plot Watchers
between the year 1981 and 1985 and they were absorbed as Forest
watchers during the year, 1995 on notional promotion pursuant to the
order of this Court dated 22.07.2010. Thereafter, they were promoted as
Forest Guards with effect from 22.07.2004. The learned counsel
appearing for the respondents states that their juniors were promoted as
Foresters on 18.04.2013. Hence, they requested the appellants to
promote them also as Foresters on par with their juniors. The said
request was rejected on the ground that the respondents did not
complete the six months Vaigai Dam Training within the specified time.
3. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.26784 of
2013 dated 03.12.2013 (S.Premathi and 3 others vs. The Additional
Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue and 2 others), wherein,
this Court had allowed the writ petition on the ground that a Government
employee cannot be denied promotion on the ground that he/she did not
possess the service qualification, which is beyond his/her control, the
learned Single Judge disposed of the instant writ petition.
Page 3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
4. The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the order
passed in W.P.Nos.47872 and 47885 of 2006 dated 04.09.2007, wherein
it was held as follows:
“8. Under these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be
denied the benefit of inclusion in the panel, on the ground that
they did not possess the service qualification. After all, the
service qualification cannot be equated to the qualification of a
pass in the departmental test. While the pass in a
departmental test may be in the hands of the individual, the
posting of the individual to a particular post, is not within the
hands of the individual. Therefore, the respondents ought to
have formulated and implemented a policy providing equal
opportunity to all persons to acquire the service qualifications.
Since the respondents have failed to do so, the petitioners
were not at fault and on that ground, they should not have
been omitted to be included in the panel.”
5. The respondents, who are the writ petitioners contended that
they were not deputed to Vaigai Dam Training within a specific period
and the same cannot be attributed as their fault.
6. The learned State Government Counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that the learned Single Judge had not considered
Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules in regard to
Page 4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
the other qualification in respect of promotion to the post of Forester.
The relevant rule is extracted hereunder:
5. OTHER QUALIFICATION
No person shall be eligible for appointment to the class, category and
grade specified in column (1) and by the method specified in column
(2) of the table below unless he possess the qualifications specified
in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof.
Class Method Qualifications
Category
Class-1 iv) promotion of (b) Must have successfully
2. Forester Forest Guard completed a course of
training in a Tamil Nadu
Forestry College, Vaigai Dam
if he had not already
undergone such training.
7. No doubt, the above said Rule 5 stipulates other qualification
such as Vaigai Dam Training as mandatory. However, unless the
appellants depute the respondents for such training at the appropriate
time, they could not be expected to complete the same. The
respondents, who are the employees, may not compel the appellants to
depute them for the training. The alleged non-completion of the training
by the writ petitioners/respondents herein within the stipulated period is
not their fault and the same cannot be put against them, dis-entitling
them from getting their promotion. It is also pointed out that the juniors
to the respondents have marched ahead of them by getting a promotion.
Page 5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
Therefore, the contention of the learned State Government Counsel that
a person can be promoted based on merit and ability apart from
seniority and the departmental promotion committee alone is competent
to recommend the person fit for promotion cannot be accepted.
8. The next contention of the learned State Government Counsel
is that the juniors to the respondents were promoted only pursuant to
the Court order, also is not acceptable. Therefore, the respondents
cannot be prejudiced and deprived of their lawful promotion on the
ground that they have not completed the training in the Tamil Nadu
Forestry College, Vaigai Dam as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Tamil
Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellants to include the
names of the writ petitioners/respondents in the panel for the year
2011-2012 and promote them as Foresters from the date on which their
juniors were promoted on notional basis. There is no infirmity or illegality
in the above order and the same is confirmed.
Page 6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N. J.] [S.K. J.]
07.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
rsi
Page 7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
rsi
W.A.No.2682 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.17240 of 2019
07.07.2021
Page 8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
