Madras High Court
Tmt.P.Santhi vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 10 June, 2022
WP No.10379 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10-06-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.10379 of 2014
Tmt.P.Santhi .. Petitioner
vs.
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Personnnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009. .. Respondent
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to the respondent's proceedings in G.O.(4D) No.39,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (H1) Department, dated 28.05.2013
and quash the same and direct the respondent to include the petitioner name
in the Panel of Assistant Section Officers fit for appointment as Section
Officers issued in G.O.(4D) No.35, P&AR (H) Department, dated
30.08.2012 and to appoint the petitioner as Section Officer by recruitment
by transfer for the year 2011-2012 and place her in appropriate place in the
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.10379 of 2014
seniority list of Section Officer with all service and monetary benefits on
par with her immediate junior.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondent : Ms.S.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader.
ORDER
The panel of Assistant Section Officers fit for appointment as
Section Officers for the year 2011-2012 in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service
issued in G.O.(4D) No.35, Personnel and Administrative and Reforms
Department, dated 30.08.2012, is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Personal Clerk in the Labour
and Employment Department of Secretariat through Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission. She joined in the Secretariat Service on 19.08.1994.
She was allotted to P&AR Department with effect from 26.08.1994. The
services of the petitioner was regularised in the post of Personal Clerk in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.10379 of 2014
G.O.Ms.No.209, Labour and Employment Department, dated 10.11.1995
with effect from 19.08.1994. The petitioner was promoted to the post of
Assistant Section Officer with effect from 09.07.2007. The next avenue for
promotion is to the post of Section Officer and the petitioner was waiting
for her promotion in the order of seniority.
3. The respondent has prepared a panel of Assistant Section
officers fit for appointment as Section Officers for the year 2011-2012. The
respondent found that the writ petitioner possessed the qualification of M.A.
from Open University and the said Open University Degree was declared as
invalid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Annamalai University vs.
Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department [2009
(4) SCC 590]. The said judgment of the Supreme was implemented by the
Government of Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, the Open University Degrees
granted without undergoing the regular pattern of education i.e., 10+2+3
became invalid. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner acquired the
Master Degree without undergoing the regular degree course of 3 years.
Therefore, the M.A. Degree acquired by the writ petitioner became invalid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.10379 of 2014
Hence, her name was not included for promotion to the post of Section
Officer in the panel of the year 2011-2012.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently, the
writ petitioner possessed the requisite qualification of degree through
Correspondence Education and accordingly her name was considered in the
panel of the year 2014-2015 and she was promoted to the post of Section
Officer in G.O.(4D) No.27, Personnel and Administration Department,
dated 30.06.2016.
5. As far as the impugned panel is concerned, as on the date of
the publication of panel, admittedly, the petitioner was possessing the Open
University M.A. Degree, which is invalid as per the judgment of the
Supreme Court and based on the orders issued by the Government,
implementing the Supreme Court judgment. When an employee is not
qualified in accordance with the Rules in force at the time of publication of
panel, then the authorities have rightly not included the name of the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.10379 of 2014
petitioner. The ground raised by the petitioner that the crucial date is to be
taken into consideration is irrelevant as even after the crucial date, if it is
found that the employee is not qualified for promotion or charges or facing
disciplinary proceedings or otherwise, the authorities are well within their
powers not to include the name of such an employee for further promotion.
For all purposes, an employee at the time of publication of panel and at the
time of passing an order of promotion must be qualified and any
disqualification found in between is a ground for deleting the name of the
person from the panel or otherwise.
6. This being the principles to be followed, the respondent
found that at the time of publication of panel, the petitioner was not
possessing the requisite qualification of degree and the Rule was amended
before the publication of panel and thus there is no infirmity as such in
respect of the order impugned passed. However. the petitioner acquired
qualification subsequently and promoted to the post of Section Officer in
order dated 30.06.2016. In view of the facts and circumstances, the
petitioner is not entitled for retrospective promotion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.10379 of 2014
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
10-06-2022
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.10379 of 2014
To
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Personnnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.10379 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 10379 of 2014
10-06-2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
