Madras High Court
The Inspector General Of ... vs S.Anbazhagan on 26 April, 2023
W.A.No.893 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.893 of 2017
The Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai – 600 028. .. Appellant
Vs
S.Anbazhagan .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 23.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27746
of 2010.
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
and Mr.M.Babu Barveez
Government Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr.A.Amalraj
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.893 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 23.4.2014
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27746 of 2010.
2. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid writ petition to
direct the appellant herein to include his name in the panel of “Junior
Assistants” fit for promotion as “Assistants” for the year 1998-1999,
on a par with his juniors. The writ court relying on a Full Bench
decision of this court in The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Thanjavur Range v. V.Rani, 2011 (3) CTC 129, allowed the writ
petition holding that, after the currency of the punishment period, the
government servant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the
next post without having to wait for any further time on the ground of
check period. Assailing the said order, the present appeal has been
filed.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of
the appellant, contended that subsequent to the decision of the Full
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.893 of 2017
Bench of this court in V.Rani, supra, the Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S), dated
24.2.2014, amended the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services and by virtue of the Clause (1-HH), which was
given retrospective effect from 27.8.2003, the writ petitioner/
respondent herein is not entitled to be considered for promotion.
However, the learned Single Judge without considering the subsequent
amendments brought in by the aforesaid government order has
erroneously held that the concept of 'check period' has been abolished.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner/respondent herein placing heavy reliance on the decision of
the Full Bench of this court in V.Rani, supra, prayed for dismissal of
the writ appeal.
5. The moot question that falls for consideration in this appeal is
as to whether the non-consideration of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (S), dated 24.2.2014, which was issued much
prior to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on
23.4.2014, will have any repercussion in the instant case.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.893 of 2017
6. In V.Rani, supra, the Full Bench of this court considered the
legal effect of G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, dated 18.10.1993, and held that administrative
instructions issued in the form of government order cannot supplement
the Rules and in the absence of any statutory rule, the government
order imposing “Check Period” and treating “Censure” as an embargo
for consideration for further promotion is not sustainable and,
accordingly, quashed the said government order.
7. Pursuant thereto, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.22,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S), dated 24.2.2014, inter alia,
inserting Clause (1-HH) in the Rules. The said provision is reproduced
hereunder:
“(1-HH) Any punishment (other than 'Censure')
imposed on a member of service within a period
of five years prior to the cruical date and a
punishment of 'Censure' imposed within a period
of one year prior to the crucial date shall be held
against the member of service and his name shall
not be considered for inclusion in the approved
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.893 of 2017
list. Any punishment, including 'Censure' imposed on
a member of service after the crucial date, but before
actual promotion or appointment shall be held against
the member of service and he shall not be given
promotion or appointment.”
[emphasis supplied]
8. When a statutory provision has been incorporated, the parties
are bound by it. In the case on hand, the statutory provision, supra,
has been given retrospective effect from 27.8.2003. However,
G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S), dated
24.2.2014, was not placed before the learned Single Judge, who
passed the impugned order on 23.4.2014, a date subsequent to the
issuance of the government order. On this score alone, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
9. At this juncture, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the name of the
writ petitioner/respondent herein was included in panel for the year
1998-1999 on 20.10.1998 and, subsequently, he was promoted as
Sub Registrar Grade-II in the year 2014-15 and as Sub Registrar
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.893 of 2017
Grade-I in the year 2018-2019. The said fact is not disputed by
learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal is allowed and the
order dated 23.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.12570 of
2017 is closed.
(D.K.K., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
26.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.893 of 2017
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.893 of 2017
26.04.2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
