Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs V.K.Radhamani on 4 July, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.447 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply (Peroo-1) Department,
Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
3.The District Town Panchayat Officer,
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
4.The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayat,
Attoor Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District. ...Appellants
/Vs./
V.K.Radhamani ...Respondent
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 25.03.2011 in W.P.(MD)No.759 of 2008 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.G.Marichamy
for Mr.P.Thiagarajan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.)
The State has filed the present writ appeal challenging the
order of the writ court in W.P.(MD)No.759 of 2008, wherein the order of
the District Collector rejecting the request of the writ petitioner for grant
of promotion was set aside.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed by the District Collector
on 30.03.1985 dehors of the Service Rules. Questioning the said
appointment, the first respondent by order, dated 27.08.1987 had directed
the District Collector to terminate the writ petitioner with immediate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
effect. After her successful attempts before the State Administrative
Tribunal and before this Court, the Government was pleased to pass a
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.98 (2 Pa.), Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Department, dated 21.07.2007 regularizing the
services of the writ petitioner in the post of Record Clerk from
04.04.1985. As per the said Government Order, the writ petitioner was
eligible to receive annual increments and also arrears of salary.
3.When the writ petitioner made a request for promoting her to
the post of Junior Assistant, the said request was rejected by the District
Collector by an order dated 31.10.2007, which was the subject matter of
the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.759 of 2008. This Court by order, dated
25.03.2011 had quashed the order of the District Collector and directed
him to promote the petitioner notionally as Junior Assistant from the
date, on which her immediate juniors were promoted and to fix the
revised pay on notional basis and to pay the actual pay of the promoted
post from the date, on which she has been posted to the promoted post.
This order is under challenge in the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.According to the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants, the very appointment of the writ petitioner
is dehors of the service rules and therefore, she is not entitled to seek any
promotion from the post of Record Clerk. It is further contended that the
appointment can be done only through the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission and therefore, the present appointment being illegal, the
question of seeking promotion would not arise.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / writ
petitioner contended that having appointed the writ petitioner and
regularised her services from the date of her appointment by way of
G.O.Ms.(2 Pa.) No.98, dated 21.06.2007, the appellants cannot turn
around and contended that the writ petitioner has been appointed dehors
of the service rules.
6.Perusal of the Government Order issued by the Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department clearly indicates that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
service of the writ petitioner in the post of Record Clerk has been
regularised with effect from 04.04.1985. Once the service of the writ
petitioner has been regularised, all other consequential service benefits
will follow. The source of recruitment cannot be a hurdle to consider the
candidate for promotion. Therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to
contend that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any promotion to the
higher post. We do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal lacks merits and
accordingly, its is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
04.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
Order made in
W.A.(MD)No.447 of 2014
Dated:
04.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
