Madras High Court
M.Muthumani vs The Commissioner on 3 April, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Nos. 5347 & 418 of 2025
And
W.M.P.Nos. 5921, 5922, 5925, 5927, 482 to 484 & 488 of 2025
W.P.No. 5347 of 2025
M.Muthumani ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (Works)
Greater Chennai Corporation
Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.
3. Thiru.V.Kumaresan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
of the first respondent in his proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
2
Po.Thu.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.E2/5932/2019 dated 14.08.2024 in so far as its
reverts the petitioner as Assistant Law Officer and consequential order of
the second respondent in his proceedings Sa.Ku.Na.Ka.No.
Sa.Ku.1/4750/2024 dated 28.01.2025 fixing the pay of the petitioner in the
post of Assistant Law Officer w.e.f. 16.08.2024 served to the petitioner on
30.01.2025 and to quash the same as being unsustainable in law and for a
consequential direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to restore the petitioner to
the post of Law Officer in the first respondent Corporation.
***
For Petitioner :: Mrs. N.Kavitha Rameshwar
For RR 1 & 2 :: Mr.Raghul Adhithya
and Mrs. P.T.Rama Devi
For 3rd Respondent :: Mr.L.Chandrakumar
for Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
W.P.No. 418 of 2025
M.Muthumani ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporaion
Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.
2. Thiru.V.Kumaresan ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
3
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
proceedings of the first respondent in Po.Thu.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.
E2/5932/2019 dated 14.08.2024 appointing the second respondent in the
post of Law Officer with retrospective effect, when the petitioner is already
holding the said post, being senior to him, and to quash the same as being
unsustainble in law, and for a consequential direction to the first respondent
to fix the seniority in the post of Assistant Law Officer based on the
merit/marks scored during the time of Appointment, for future promotions
of the petitioner to the post of Senior Law Officer.
***
For Petitioner :: Mrs. N.Kavitha Rameshwar
For 1st Respondent :: Mr.Raghul Adhithya
and Mrs. P.T.Rama Devi
For 2nd Respondent :: Mr.L.Chandrakumar
for Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
COMMON ORDER
Both the Writ Petitions have been filed by the same petitioner. The
petitioner was working as Assistant Law Officer, Greater Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
Corporation and subsequently promoted as Law Officer.
2. In W.P.No. 418 of 2025, the petitioner who was reverted as
Assistant Law Officer has questioned the order appointing the second
respondent as Law Officer with retrospective effect by an order dated
14.08.2024.
3. In W.P.No. 5347 of 2025, quite apart from again challenging the
same order dated 14.08.2024, the petitioner had challenged the
consequential proceedings of the second respondent/ the Deputy
Commissioner (Works), Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai, dated
28.01.2025 whereby the pay of the petitioner was refixed as applicable to
the post of Assistant Law Officer with effect from 16.08.2024.
4. The facts are cited in accordance with the averments affidavit filed
in support of W.P.No. 5347 of 2025.
5. The petitioner M.Muthumani and the third respondent
V.Kumaresan were both appointed as Assistant Law Officer consequent to a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
viva voice conducted by the first and second respondents and they joined
duty on 28.02.2011. Three candidates had been selected. The first one
P.Vijaykumar had obtained 20 marks in the viva voice. The third
respondent herein V.Kumaresan had obtained 13.75 marks and the
petitioner M.Muthumani had obtained 17.5 marks. However, while
determining the serial number in which selected candidates should be
placed, P.Vijaykumar was placed in serial No.1, the third respondent
V.Kumaresan was placed in serial No.2 and the petitioner / M.Muthumani
was placed in serial No.3. The reasons given for placing the petitioner, who
had obtained more marks than the third respondent in serial No.3 was based
on a resolution of the Corporation that seniority shall be fixed in accordance
with age and experience. V.Kumaresan was born in the year 1968 and the
petitioner born in the year 1974. V.Kumaresan had registered himself in the
Employment Exchange on 11.03.1998, whereas the petitioner had registered
herself in the Employment Exchange on 24.05.2001. The candidates had
been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and after conducting viva
voice / interview, they had been selected.
6. Two versions are given as to why V.Kumaresan had been placed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
in serial No. 2 and M.Muthumani the petitioner herein had been placed in
serial No.3. The first one is that V.Kumaresan / the third respondent was
senior in age and experience and therefore had been placed in serial No.2.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner gave a second reversion and
claimed that the seniority had been allotted in accordance with the rotation
system and V.Kumaresan who belongs to Most Backward Class was placed
in serial No.2 and the petitioner who belongs to Backward Class was placed
in serial No.3.
7. Both these explanations do not address the fact that the petitioner
had obtained 17.5 marks in the interview/viva voice and the third
respondent V.Kumaresan had obtained 13.75 marks in the interview. That
was the only test by which their suitability and eligibility to be appointed as
Assistant Law Officers was determined. That was the only screening
methodology adopted by the first and second respondents to take a decision
to appoint them as Assistant Law Officers.
8. While functioning as Assistant Law Officer, V.Kumaresan/ third
respondent was visited with a charge memo on 22.06.2022. On that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
particular date, there was a vacancy available to the next promotion post of
Law Officer. Since the charge memo was pending, he was not considered
for promotion and the petitioner was appointed on 24.06.2024 to the post of
Law Officer. She continued to function in that particular post.
9. An enquiry was conducted against V.Kumaresan/third respondent
and finally, the enquiry officer had returned a finding that the charges were
not established. Thereafter, proceedings had been issued by the respondents
dropping the charges. I am not taking that issue any further.
10. A clarification was then sought from the Government and a
clarification had been issued on 11.07.2024 that since the charges had been
dropped, V.Kumaresan could be now considered for promotion in the panel
for the year 2022-2023 with retrospective effect but with notional extension
of service and monetary benefits.
11. V.Kumaresan had given a representation and later filed W.P.no.
35903 of 2023 seeking examination of that particular representation. A
learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 22.12.2023 placed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
obligation on the Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner, Greater
Chennai Corporation, to examine the representation given by V.Kumaresan
/ third respondent and pass orders with regard to the merits of the claim of
V.Kumaresan within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of that particular order from the High Court. Since orders had not
been passed, a contempt petition came to be filed.
12. This stirred the first and second respondents into action as they
had to take a decision. They found that the petitioner herein had already
been promoted as Law Officer. Now they had to consider the case of
V.Kumaresan who was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post
of Law Officer with effect from the year 2022-2023. They did what they
could reasonably do, namely, revert the petitioner to the post of Assistant
Law Officer and promote V.Kumaresan to the post of Law Officer. This
promotion and reversion was justified on the ground that V.Kumaresan was
senior in age and experience and therefore, was senior to the petitioner
herein and therefore entitled to be promoted in the panel 2022-2023 and the
only way he could be so promoted since there was only one post available
for the post of Law Officer was to oust the petitioner from that particular
post and revert her to the post of Assistant Law Officer and place him in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
post of Law Officer. To put it mildly, this is a very sorry state of affairs.
13. When the disciplinary proceedings were pending and
V.Kumaresan was not considered for promotion and over looking him or
rather side stepping him, the petitioner had been promoted to the post of
Law Officer, prudence required that such promotion order should have been
issued subject to outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
14. The learned counsel for the third respondent/V.Kumaresan
however stated that there being only one post of Law Officer, there could
not be such reservation made or a qualified promotion being granted. It had
been contended that if charges are dropped or if charges are not established,
then automatically, V.Kumaresan must be considered for promotion since it
has to be reckoned that the charges had never been framed at all or no
proceedings had been initiated against V.Kumaresan.
15. It had been therefore contended by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the third respondent that the first and second respondents had
correctly given due credence to the seniority of the third respondent
V.Kumaresan and had promoted him on the date when he was eligible to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
promoted had departmental proceedings not been initiated against him
namely, in the panel year 2022-2023. It had therefore contended that a
wrong had been set right by promoting V.Kumaresan to the post of Law
Officer with effect from 2022-2023 on the date on which he was eligible to
be so considered for promotion.
16. It had also been stated by the learned counsel for the third
respondent that the petitioner must consider herself fortunate as she had not
been directed to reimburse the salary received by her in the post of Law
Officer which she held from the date of promotion in June 2022 till she was
reverted back in August 2024. It had also been stated that V.Kumaresan
had not been granted any monetary benefits though he had been recognised
to be promoted with effect from June 2022 onwards.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner however claimed that there
was a selection process conducted and after a particular selection process in
which marks had been granted and weightage had been given for those
marks, then in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in P.Madhu Vs. K.Nanthakumar and another reported in Contempt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6415/2021 in SLP(C)No. 2886 of 2016 by an
order dated 18.04.2023 which directions are binding on every department,
the seniority should have been revised in accordance with merit and under
no other consideration. It had been contended that the petitioner had
obtained 17.5 marks in the only test conducted, namely, interview while the
third respondent/V.Kumaresan had obtained 13.75 marks and therefore
overlooking every other aspect including age / experience / rota quota, the
petitioner should be deemed to be senior to V.Kumaresan and therefore
contended that the petitioner had a right to be promoted as Law Officer
ahead of V.Kumaresan. It had been contended that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in P.Madhu Vs. K.Nanthakumar and another reported in Contempt
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6415/2021 in SLP(C)No. 2886 of 2016 by an
order dated 18.04.2023 had directed that such seniority should be refixed in
all public departments on and from 10.03.2003. It had been contended that
therefore, a legal obligation was cast on the first and second respondents to
apply this particular Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to
automatically revise the seniority since the petitioner and the third
respondent had entered the office of Assistant Law Officer on direct
recruitment and not recruited on transfer from any other post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
18. It had been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the only test which was conducted was interview and marks
had been granted for such interview and if those marks were to be examied
and merit was to be the bench mark for determining seniority then the first
and second respondents, bound by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
should have placed the petitioner as senior to the third respondent. It was
contended that any resolution passed by the respondents that seniority
would be determined only on the basis of experience would not withstand
the scrutiny of any Court and would be against the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. It had also been contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that merely because seniority had not been revised officially, it
would not mean that the petitioner should therefore been considered as
junior to the third respondent. She should have been placed senior to
V.Kumaresan.
19. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused
the materials available on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
20. The petitioner had filed W.P.No. 418 of 2025 questioning an
order reverting her to the post of Assistant Law Officer from the post of
Law Officer. That order was passed on 14.08.2024 by the first respondent
therein / the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation. By that order, the
petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Law Officer and the second
respondent in the said Writ Petition, V.Kumaresan was promoted to the post
of Law Officer. These issues would not have arisen for consideration had
not in June 2022, V.Kumaresan been served with a Show Cause Notice
contemplating initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
21. Both the petitioner and V.Kumaresan wre functioning as
Assistant Law Officers. They had been recruited as Assistant Law Officers.
They had been recruited on the basis of a test conducted. That test was by
viva voice / interview. Marks were given for that particular test. The
petitioner was granted 17.5 marks and V.Kumaresan was granted 13 marks.
There was yet another candidate P.Vijaykumar, who had obtained 20 marks
but quite sensibly in my opinion, and exercising prudence, he opted not to
join the post. This left only the petitioner and V.Kumaresan as the only two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
candidates, who had been selected for the post of Assistants Law Officer,
Greater Chennai Corporation. At that particular point of time when they
were so selected on 25.01.2019, on the basis of a resolution of the
Corporation, which stated that seniority would be on the basis of
experience, V.Kumaresan was placed senior to the petitioner. The marks
obtained were considered irrelevant for placement of senior.
22. Alternatively, it is also seen that V.Kumaresan belongs to Most
Backward Class and it is contended that as per the rota quota system, he was
placed in serial No.2 and the petitioner, who belonged to Backward Class
was placed in serial No.3.
23. In June 2022, the promotion to the post of Law Officer opened.
V.Kumaresan was not considered since disciplinary proceedings had been
initiated against him. The petitioner was therefore been appointed as Law
Officer. The order of appointment of the petitioner as Law Officer is very
cryptic and let me extract it in entirety for better appreciation:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
“Miz
nkny gof;fg;gl;l kd;wj; jPh;khdj;jpy; 01/04/2022I ika
ehshff; bfhz;L jahhpf;fg;gl;l 2022 ? 2023 Mk;
Mz;ow;fhd rl;l mYtyh; gjtpf;fhd bjhpt[g;gl;oaYf;F
xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sijj; bjhlh;e;J. bjhpt[g;gl;oaypy;
,lk;bgw;wpUf;Fk; jpUkjp/M.Kj;Jkzp cjtp rl;l mYtyh;
mth;fSf;F murhiz epiy vz;/303. epjp (C/F/)j; Jiw.
ehs; 11/10/2017 d; go epiy 25 U:/59.300-? U:/2.17.600-? Vd;w
Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; rl;l mYtyh; gjtp cah;t[ tH';fp.
bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rp rl;l FGkj;jpy;
(jiyikaplk;) gzpakh;t[ bra;J Miz tH';fg;gLfpwJ/
nkw;go gjtp cah;t[ bgw;w mYtyh;fspd; gzpnaw;g[
mwpf;ifapid bghJj;Jiwf;F mDg;gp itf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/
Xk;-? vk;/v!;/gpurhe;j;.
Mizah;(bgh) ”
24. A reading of the same shows that the petitioner had been
promoted to the post of Law Officer from the post of Assistant Law Office
consequent to a resolution passed by the respondent on 01.04.2022. There
is no reference about the disciplinary proceedings that were pending against
V.Kumaresan or that this promotion was subject to the outcome of the
disciplinary proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
25. It is a mute question whether that fact should have been clarified
by the respondents. The petitioner was under legitimate expectation that she
had been promoted in accordance with rules and regulations to the post of
Law Officer. She was never put on notice that it was subject to any other
condition surfacing in future. She was never placed put on notice that there
a decision could be taken in future of reverting her back to the post of
Assistant Law Officer. This fact is neither denied or disputed.
26. The disciplinary proceedings against V.Kumaresan parallely
proceeded and finally, the charges were dropped. The effect affected the
petitioner's prospects.
27. A clarification letter dated 11.07.2024 was addressed to the first
and second respondents by the Government giving an opinion that since
charges have been dropped against V.Kumaresan, he could be considered
for promotion to the post of Law Officer in the panel of the year 2022-2023.
28. V.Kumaresan filed a Writ Petition in which a Mandamus was
issued to examine a representation given by him by which representation, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
had sought that he should be considered for promotion. He also filed a
Contempt Petition. The respondents thereafter passed the impugned order
dated 14.08.2024 appointing him as Law Officer. In the order impugned, it
had been stated that both the petitioner and V.Kumaresan, had joined duty
on 28.02.2011 as Assistant Law Officers and thereafter, V.Kumaresan had
filed W.P.No. 35903 of 2023 and an order had been passed on 22.12.2023
and accordingly, he was promoted as Law Officer and that the petitioner
herein had been depromoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer.
29. Very unfortunately, both the first and second respondents as also
the Principal Secretary to the Government who had issued the clarification
had given a go by to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
seniority should be based on merits on and from 10.03.2023 onwards and
that there should be a revision of the seniority list of all government
servants in all departments in accordance with such direction. Had the
directions been followed and had a little consideration shown to follow the
dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then the petitioner would have been
placed senior to V.Kumaresan. It is not known why the Principal Chief
Secretary or the first and second respondents had given a goby to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not their case that they stood
exempted from following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
30. They are bound by the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
As a matter fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that particular Judgment had
said that if seniority is not redrawn in accordance with merit, then officials
will be called in person to explain why such exercise was not done. While
examining the marks obtained by them in the interview, it is clear that the
petitioner should have been placed in serial No.2 and V.Kumaresan should
have been placed under serial No.3. Probably it is for that reason, the order
of the petitioner promoting her as Law Officer did not include any clause
that it was subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings since any
outcome would not affect the promotion granted.
31. I hold that whether the charges were dropped or whether the
charges stood proved, the petitioner's promotion as Law Officer could not
and should not have been disturbed.
32. The opinion given by the Principal Secretary flies in the face of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, that letter it
could only be taken as a piece of paper without any legal effect. There is no
reference to the directions issued as to how seniority should be determined
when candidates are selected on the basis of a test and selected by direct
recruitment on the same day and join on the same day.
33. When viewed from that angle and when applying the law of the
land as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, V.Kumaresan, by no stretch
of imagination could be considered as senior to the petitioner, who had been
granted more marks by the first and second respondents in their evaluation
of the respective merits. Therefore, whether the disciplinary proceeding was
pending or not pending and whether the charges had been subsequently
dropped or not dropped, the petitioner had been correctly and lawfully
promoted as Law Officer and has every right to seek a direction to be
retained in that particular post.
34. The impugned orders are therefore set aside. A direction is given
to the first and second respondents to once again pass appropriate orders
placing the petitioner herein as Law Officer. The second respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
V.Kumaresan in W.P.No. 418 of 2025/ the third respondent in W.P.No.
5347 of 2025 will necessarily have to face the reality that he must function
only as Assistant Law Officer and necessary orders in that regard must be
passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
35. The Writ Petitions stand allowed. W.M.P.Nos. 5921 & 482 of
2025 stand ordered as prayed for. W.M.P.Nos. 5922, 5925, 5927, 483, 484
& 488 of 2025 stand closed. No order as to costs.
36. Naturally, the petitioner, who had not been paid appropriate
remuneration should be paid the remuneration as was and is applicable to
the post of Law Officer on and from the date, she had been wrongly reverted
to the post of Assistant Law Officer.
03.04.2025
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
2. The Deputy Commissioner (Works)
Greater Chennai Corporation
Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
vsg
W.P.Nos. 5347 & 418 of 2025
And
W.M.P.Nos. 5921, 5922, 5925,
5927, 482 to 484 & 488 of 2025
03.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
