Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Dr.S.Saravanan on 6 March, 2024
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
Writ Appeal No.1462 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 06.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.1462 of 2021 &
C.M.P. No.9138 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep., by the Secretary,
Health & Family Welfare Department,
Fort St., George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine,
DMS Compound, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018. ... Appellants
Vs
Dr.S.Saravanan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent
against the order dated 10.11.2020 made in W.P.No.9373 of 2013.
For Appellants : Ms.M.Sneha, Spl., counsel for Health &
Family Welfare
For Respondents : Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Intra-Court Appeal had been preferred by the State as being ag
grieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside
the order of the first respondent dated 20.10.2012 and further directing the
appellants to prepare a panel in terms of G.O.Ms.No.368, for arriving at the
vacancies and promote such persons, who fall within the zone of
consideration during the relevant point of time.
2. Heard Ms.M.Sneha, learned Special counsel appearing for Health
and Family Welfare Department and Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma, learned coun
sel appearing for the respondent.
3. The learned Special counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit that the panel for the year 2000-01 was drawn with a crucial date for
arriving at a panel on 15.02.2000. On the said date, the respondent herein
was not qualified to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director, as he had
acquired the requisite qualification to the said post only on 11.10.2000. She
would submit that a panel was drawn by taking into account the retirement
vacancy, promotional vacancy, the likely promotions and leave reserve
vacancy during the panel year i.e., from 16.02.2000 to 15.02.2001. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent herein as being aggrieved against the drawl of panel in respect of
three vacancies, had made a representation that the vacancies, which were
likely to be made available due to the promotion of the serving Deputy Dir
ectors as Joint Directors of the Department should not be made. Ac
cording to him, such number of vacancies ought not to have been in
cluded in the panel for the year 2000-01 as it goes against the guidelines is
sued by the Government under the G.O.Ms.No.368. She would submit that
for the panel for the year 2000-01, a panel of serving Deputy Director fit for
promotion to the post of Joint Director was also drawn and in that said pan
el, three Deputy Directors' names were included. Since the said panel was
also drawn, the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Director
had also included, the said three likely vacancies, which were subject
to the final orders of promotion. The said aspect has also been ex
plained in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the Writ Petition.
but however without considering the same, the learned Single Judge had
erred in holding that there was no materials placed before him to convince
that the G.O.Ms.No.368 had been scrupulously followed and on that
ground, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order in rejecting of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
claim of the respondent and had inter alia issued the direction to redraw the
panel in terms of G.O.Ms.No.368.
4. She would further submit that the promotions were made on the
basis of the panel that was drawn for the year 2000-01. However, after a
period of almost 10 years, the respondent had made a representation seeking
to redraw the panel by contending that certain of his juniors were promoted
before him. She would submit that it cannot be disputed by the respondent
that he had acquired the requisite qualification viz., five years of experience
in the feeder category with a diploma in Public Health course on the crucial
date. The respondent had acquired the said diploma qualification only in
the month of October 2000 and therefore, his name could not be considered
to be included in the panel. However, certain of his juniors who had the
requisite qualification had been included. This aspect had been completely
over looked by the learned Single Judge in passing the order impugned
before us in the appeal and hence, she would seek interference of this Court.
5. Countering her arguments, Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma, learned coun
sel for the respondent would submit that the G.O.Ms.No.368, envis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ages ingredients for mode of preparation of estimates for preparation of a
panel to be drawn for promotion. She would submit that as per the said
Government Order, the vacancies which are likely to arise should not be
considered in a particular panel year and the same could only be reckoned
for the next panel year. She would further submit that the claim of the
appellants as regards to the likely vacancies, which arose due to the likely
promotion of the three Deputy Directors cannot be countenanced for the
simple reason that the panel as regards to the promotion to the post of Joint
Director was approved by the Government vide G.O.D.No.261, Health and
Family Welfare Department, dated 26.02.2001, and they were granted
posting orders under G.O.D.No.389, Health and Family Welfare
Department, dated 20.03.2001. She would submit that this itself would
show that the said promotion of the Deputy Directors happened after the
panel for the year 2000-01 had expired on 15.02.2001. Therefore, the
inclusion of the three vacancies under the caption for “likely vacancies”
while drawing the panel for the year 2000-01 itself was erroneous. Had that
not been filled then the actual vacancies would have arisen in the panel year
2001-02 and the respondent being the senior most person would have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
automatically promoted. However, for the panel for the year 2001-02, it was
shown as 'Nil' vacancy and that there was no promotion which had af
fected the right of the respondent to hold the post of Deputy Director at an
earlier point of time. Therefore, she would submit that there was no error in
the order passed by the learned Single Judge and she would seek no
interference of this Court.
6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on
record.
7. The lis that is to be decided in this Intra Court Appeal is as to
whether the appellants were right in including three vacancies under the
head of 'likely promotions' during the panel for the year 16.02.2000 to
15.02.2001 for the vacancies of the year 2000-01.
8. In that aspect, it could be seen that a panel for promotions to the
posts of Deputy Director and Joint Director had been prepared by the Direct
or of Public Health and Preventive Medicine viz., the second appel
lant herein on 10.11.2000 and 29.11.2000.
9. Admittedly, three Deputy Directors name have been included in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
panel “fit for promotion” as Joint Directors for the panel year
2000-01. When such a panel is drawn, it is axiomatic that under
exceptional circumstances, the person included in the panel would be denied
promotion. Having drawn the panel, it is also axiomatic that va
cancies would arise in the post of Deputy Director due to the promotion of
Deputy Directors as Joint Directors. It is not the case of the respondent that
he was qualified to be promoted as Deputy Director on the crucial date (i.e.,
15.02.2000) for drawing of panel of persons fit for promotion to the post of
Deputy Directors. This aspect had been clearly over looked by the learned
Single Judge.
10. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in
drawing of panel of Health Officers fit for promotion as Deputy Directors for
the panel year 2000-01, which warrant interference by this Court. In view
of the aforesaid reasonings and findings, we are of the view that the order
impugned before us is not sustainable.
11. In fine, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and as a sequel, the said Writ
Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
06.03.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
pbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
pbn
Writ Appeal No.1462 of 2021 &
06.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
