Madras High Court
Dr.C.Selvakumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 September, 2022
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
