Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs Prabhu Jayakumar Moses on 26 August, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD) No.1944 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.08.2025
Pronounced on : 26.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD) No.1944 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.14391 of 2024 & CMP(MD)No.4248 of 2025
1.The Secretary to Government,
Micro Small Medium Enterprises Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 09.
2.The Industries Commissioner and
Director of Industries and Commerce,
SIDCO Office Building,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Appellants
Vs.
Prabhu Jayakumar Moses ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 21.06.2023 in WP(MD)No.16738 of 2018.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1944 of 2024
For Appellants : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ravikumar
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The Government of Tamil Nadu has filed this writ appeal
challenging the order dated 21.06.2023 made in WP(MD)No.16738 of
2018 filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the writ
petitioner).
2.The writ petitioner was recruited through TNPSC and appointed
as Tester on 19.06.1995. He was promoted to the post of Assistant
Director (Electrical and Electronics) on 19.10.2009. The further avenues
of promotion are to the post of Deputy Director and then to the post of
Joint Director. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy
Director vide G.O (2D) No.07 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
(E1.1) Department dated 19.07.2022. In the department of Industries,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
there were several wings such as Electrical and Electronics, Technical
Wing and Chemical Wing. Each wing maintained separate seniority list,
and promotion to the post of Assistant Director and from the post of
Assistant Director to Deputy Director and from the post of Deputy
Director to Joint Director was made accordingly. There was a Joint
Director for each wing. The posts of JD (E&E), JD (General), JD
(Chemical) were merged and called as JD (Engineering). Pursuant to
the merger, the special rules for the Tamil Nadu Industries Services was
also amended vide G.O (2D) No.10 Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises (E1.1) Department dated 20.02.2014.
3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that while merging the
posts of Joint Director of the various wings, there was no corresponding
merger of the posts in the feeder grade. The writ petitioner points out
that since those belonging to the technical wing have greater chances
of promotion, persons who were posted as Assistant Director after the
writ petitioner had been promoted as Deputy Directors earlier in point
of time. Since persons who were junior to the writ petitioner in the
post of Assistant Director had been promoted as Deputy Directors
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
ahead of him in the technical wing, while they would be promoted as
Joint Directors in due course, the writ petitioner will have to stagnate in
the post of Deputy Director till his retirement. That led to the filing of
WP(MD)No.16738 of 2018 for directing the government to refix inter se
seniority among the Assistant Directors of the various wings and to
make promotion by fixing a quota in the post of Joint Director
(Engineering) for the various wings. The respondents filed a detailed
counter affidavit opposing the writ petitioner's claim. The learned
Single Judge found mercy in the petitioner's contentions and allowed
the writ petition vide order dated 21.06.2023 in the following terms :
“13. It is seen that the petitioner is not questioning the
policy decision of merging or the creation of post and granting
promotion to Technical Wing. The petitioner is only
questioning the illegality that has occurred to the petitioner
and the Electrical and Electronics Wing, while considering for
merging. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion
mere questioning the policy decision is different from
infringement occurred during while implementing the policy
decision. In the present case there is the infringement in
implementing the policy decision and hence the writ petition
is maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
14.The respondents have passed G.O.Ms. No.10, Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises [E1(1)] Department, dated
20.02.2014, wherein the Government has taken a policy
decision to merge the post of Joint Director (Chemicals) and
Joint Director (Electrical and Electronics) with Joint Director
(Engineering). The feeder category to the post would be the
Deputy Director (Chemicals), Deputy Director (Electrical and
Electronics) and Deputy Director (Technical). The
respondents without merging the candidates in the post of
Deputy Director level and Assistant Director level, but has
merged the post in the level of Joint Director alone has
created this infringement. This would be evident from the
communication, dated 15.09.2020 issued by the Director of
Industries and Commerce to the Principal Secretary wherein
Seniority List were prepared by taking the persons in Serial
No.47 to 75 of Deputy Director (Technical), Deputy Director
(Electrical and Electronics) and Deputy Director (Chemicals).
15. On perusal of the list, it is seen that one V.Umarani
who was appointed as Deputy Director (Chemical) on
30.09.2019, was placed in Serial No.66 whereas the petitioner
was appointed on 29.10.2019 as Deputy Director (Electrical
and Electronics) was placed in Serial No.65. Admittedly, if
these two persons are compared by date of appointment to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
post of Deputy Director post, the said Umarani would be
senior to the petitioner, thereby the said Umarani’s rights
would be affected while considering for promotion. Likewise,
one K.Sivasankaran, who was appointed as Deputy Director
(Technical) on 20.02.2020 who is placed in Serial No.61,
whereas the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director
(Electrical and Electronics) on 29.10.2019 is in Serial No.65.
If these two persons are considered, admittedly, the said
K.Sivasankaran is junior to the petitioner by the date of
appointment to the post of Deputy Director post, thereby
creating imparity while considering for promotion to the post
of Joint Director. If the inter se seniority is fixed in the post of
Deputy Director Level by taking the date of appointment in
the post of Deputy Director Level then there would not be any
illegality. The respondents failed to follow the same, thereby
infringed the rights of the petitioner and similarly placed like
that of the petitioner.
16.In the aforesaid list the respondents had listed 16
persons from Deputy Director (Tech) and thereafter included
the name of Deputy Director (E&E) and Deputy Director
(Chem), then again Deputy Director (E&E), then again listed
8 Deputy Director (Tech). The respondents had not stated
explicitly the method to fix the seniority in the Deputy
Director Level. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
opinion that the list is not in accordance with settled
principles of law that the seniority is to be prepared by taking
the date of appointment when there is more than one mode of
recruitment. As stated supra if the respondents are fixing the
seniority based on the date of appointment at Deputy Director
level then there will not be any illegality and the merging of
three categories would be smooth without affecting anybody
rights.
17. It is pertinent to state if the merger is from the lower
level that is from Assistant Director level, then there will not
be any illegality at all. But the respondents have merged only
at the Joint Director level and is continuing the division in the
lower level i.e. in Deputy Director level and Assistant
Director Level, which has created this illegality. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the
respondents that merging is not necessary at lower level is
clearly absurd since it is creating infringement of rights.
Likewise, without taking the date of appointment in the post
of Deputy Director posts / Assistant Director post in the
electrical and electronics, technical and chemical division is
absurd. Therefore, the method followed by the respondents
has clearly infringed the rights of the persons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
18. That is why, the Principal Secretary has rightly
advised the Government to provide ratio among the
candidates. At least if the ratio is granted among the
candidates, there will not be any illegality.
19. The respondents have neither followed merging
from Lower Level post i.e. Assistant Director post nor
prepared any seniority list based on the date of appointment in
the Assistant Director Post / Deputy Director post nor granted
any ratio among the electrical and electronics, technical and
chemical division has infringed the rights of the petitioner and
similarly placed persons.
20. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion
that illegality has occurred and the petitioner's claim is
absolutely right. Therefore, this Court is directing the
respondents either to fix ratio among electrical and
electronics, technical and chemical division or merge the post
of electrical and electronics, technical and chemical division
from Assistant Director post by taking the date of appointment
in the Assistant Director post and prepare a seniority list.
Thereafter, promotion shall be given to the eligible
candidates. The said exercise shall be completed within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Until the completion of the re-working of the panel,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
the respondents shall not effect any promotions. If the
respondents have promoted anybody, the same shall be
reverted and any promotion should be in accordance to the
directions stated above.”
Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated
all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.
Relying on a catena of decisions including the recent order of the Kerala
High Court in OP (KAT) No.130 of 2021 dated 18.11.2024 (Unni K.E
and ors v. State of Kerala), he contended that integrating categories
and fixing seniority based on Special Rules is a policy decision and it is
not within the court's domain to rectify the anomalies. According to
the appellants, the learned Single Judge had interfered with the policy
decision of the government. The learned Additional Government
Pleader would also point out that the petitioner had earlier filed
WP(MD)No.12754 of 2014 for including his name in the panel for
promotion of the year 2013-14 to the post of Deputy Director
(Engineering). But the said writ petition was dismissed on 13.07.2019.
The petitioner had not filed any appeal challenging the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
According to him, on account of the dismissal of WP(MD)No.12754 of
2014, the direction impugned in the present writ petition is not
sustainable. He called upon this Court to set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge and allow this writ appeal.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner
submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is eminently
sustainable. Relying on the decisions reported in (2001) (1) SCC 475
(Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. H.P. SEB), (1975) 1 SCC 319 (A.K.
Subraman v. Union of India) and 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 931
(Dattatraya G. Wankar v. State of Maharashtra), he contended
that the order of the learned Single Judge does not deserve to be
interfered with.
6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record. The data set out in the following table would
speak eloquently for itself:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
List of date of retirement for the 14 persons in the panel for Joint
Director (Engineering)
Sl.No. Name and Designation Date of Joining Date of
as AD Retirement
1. Thiru.T.Kannan, 17.02.2010 31.07.2028
Deputy Director (Technical)
2. Thiru.B.Monikandan 10.03.2011 31.01.2034
Deputy Director (Technical)
3. Thiru.T.Ramesh, 21.03.2013 30.04.2028
Deputy Director (Technical)
4. Tmt.P.Esaiselvi 24.05.2013 NA
Deputy Director
(Chemicals)
5. Tmt.A.Swarnalatha 20.05.2015 31.01.2034
Deputy Director (Technical)
6. Thiru.A.Berbet, 22.05.2015 31.07.2026
Deputy Director (Technical)
7. Tmt.M.Vidya, 22.05.2015 31.05.2029
Deputy Director (Technical)
8. Tmt.S.Thiripurasundari, 22.05.2015 30.06.2034
Deputy Director (Technical)
9. Thiru.A.Sekar, 20.05.2015 31.07.2029
Deputy Director (Technical)
10. Thiru.P.S.Kamalakannan, 21.05.2015 31.05.2029
Deputy Director (Technical)
11. Thiru.D.Sivakumar, 20.05.2015 31.07.2027
Deputy Director (Technical)
12. Thiru.G.Thirumurugan, 20.05.2015 30.06.2023
Deputy Director (Technical)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
13. Thiru.S.Prasanna 20.05.2015 30.04.2031
Balamurugan,
Deputy Director (Technical)
14. Thiru.J.Prabhu Jayakumar 19.10.2009 26.01.2030
Moses
Deputy Director (Technical)
The petitioner joined as Assistant Director (Electrical and Electronics) on
19.10.2009. It can be seen from the above table that the petitioner is
ranked at Sl.No.14. All the 13 persons who rank above him had joined
only subsequently. In fact, as many as 9 of them joined only in May
2015 as Assistant Directors. But not only they have been promoted as
Deputy Directors earlier but also promoted as Joint Directors vide G.O
(2D) No.15, MS&ME (E1(1)) Department dated 01.08.2025.
7.We can understand the agony of the writ petitioner. Persons
who had joined the same grade in another wings six years later are now
working in a higher post. It is this fact that completely swayed the
mind of the learned Single Judge which led to the issuance of the
impugned directions. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the decision
reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 931 (Dattatraya G.Wankar v.
State of Maharashtra) held as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
"We have earlier adverted to this issue of providing
quota for cadres based on different sources of recruitment
and noted that the Supreme Court has held that this would
not be violative of Articles 14 and 16. We have referred to
the observation of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class
H Employees (supra) in respect of the very service. Making
provisions and providing quotas for persons coming from
different feeder categories, would not be violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This finding in
respect of the very service and in respect of the same
cadres, must result in holding that it is permissibe to provide
for quotas for promotions for the different cadres based on
the source of recruitment."
8.We are clearly of the view that the grievances projected by the
writ petitioner will have to be redressed. The case of the writ petitioner
has to be treated as a special one. The Government is endowed with
sufficient powers and to set right injustice done to a particular
employee, appropriate orders can always be issued. When the writ
petitioner joined service, there were different wings. Each wing had its
own separate seniority. The writ petitioner had a legitimate
expectation that he would be promoted to the post of Joint Director
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
(Engineering) in due course. In fact, his immediate senior in the post of
Deputy Director had long since retired. But on account of the merger of
the posts of Joint Director and the non-merger of the posts of Assistant
Directors and Deputy Directors in various wings, the writ petitioner's
expectation has been frustrated. While the writ petitioner cannot
impugn the policy decision of the Government in merging the posts of
Joint Director, he can definitely call upon the Government to consider
earmarking a quota for each wing.
9.However, when due to merger of the two categories into a
common pool anomalies arise, the situation has to be remedied not by
the court but by the executive. It is on this ground, we set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner is permitted to
submit a fresh representation to the Government. In normal
circumstances, we would rest content to issue a direction to pass an
appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law. In this case,
we would go one step further. We direct the Government to pass such
an order that would redress the grievances raised by the writ petitioner
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
10.With the above direction, this writ appeal stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.S., J.) & (K.R.S., J.)
26.08.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
SKM
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Micro Small Medium Enterprises Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 09.
2.The Industries Commissioner and
Director of Industries and Commerce,
SIDCO Office Building,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
SKM
and
26.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
