Madras High Court
S.Sekar vs The Joint Director Of School Education ... on 6 February, 2025
W.P.No.12090 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.12090 of 2018
S.Sekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
College Road,
Chennai District.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
District Chief Educational Office,
Thiruvannamalai District.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records
which culminated in passing the order bearing reference
Na.Ka.No.18249/A4/E3/2017 dated 08.02.2018 of the first respondent
and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to include
the name of the petitioner in the panel dated 15.03.2014 drawn for
promotion to the post of Assistant at the appropriate place and to
consequently, confer notional promotion to the petitioner in the post of
Assistant with retrospective effect and give all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, GA
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the entire records which culminated in passing the
order bearing reference Na.Ka.No.18249/A4/E3/2017 dated 08.02.2018
of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the
respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel dated
15.03.2014 drawn for promotion to the post of Assistant at the
appropriate place and to consequently, confer notional promotion to the
petitioner in the post of Assistant with retrospective effect and give all
consequential benefits.
2. Heard Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents
and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant and
promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 29.08.2011 and was posted in
the office of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Arani,
Tiruvannamalai District. He joined in the promoted post on 08.09.2011.
The petitioner has completed the District Officer Manual Test which is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prerequisite for declaring his probation in the post of Junior Assistant.
However, his probation was not declared because he was not deputed to
undergo Bhavanisagar Training. In view of the same his declaration of
probation was delayed. In the meanwhile, the persons junior to him who
have been sent for Bhavanisagar Training have been included in the
promotional panel for the post of Assistant and promoted and kept above
the petitioner in the seniority list.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had completed the period of probation of two years within the
continuous period of three years without any blemish and he was also
qualified in the Departmental Test; still his probation was delayed.
5. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner did not complete Bhavanisagar Training and
hence his probation was not declared. The petitioner's probation was
declared on 14.04.2015 with effect from 07.09.2013 and as such he is
eligible to be included in the promotion panel for the post of Assistant on
15.03.2016. However, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2016 and he is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
eligible to be included in the said promotion panel.
6. Time and again it is held that the declaration of probation of the
individual cannot be effected just because there is some administrative
delay on the part of the respondent Department in sending the individuals
to Bhavanisagar Training. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has
completed all the eligibility criteria which is under his control for e.g., by
passing Departmental Examination in time. In fact, the petitioner has
given representation to declare his probation by giving retrospective
effect from the date of completion of two years of service and that has
also been positively considered by the second respondent and the
proceedings to that effect has also been passed on 14.04.2015.
7. The petitioner got retired from service on 31.01.2016 due to
attaining the age of superannuation. Had the declaration of probation
been given effect from 07.09.2013 itself at the time when the petitioner
was in service, he would have not lost his seniority to his juniors. For
none of the fault on the part of the petitioner he happened to get his
probation declared at a later point of time and that affected his promotion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. When the juniors to the petitioner who had gone to Bhavanisagar
Training could get their probation declared earlier and got themselves
included in the promotion panel, the petitioner could not get himself
included in the later promotional panel and that had affected his seniority,
the promotion and other consequential benefits. In fact, the respondents
themselves ought to have re-fixed the petitioner's pensionary benefits by
giving him notional promotion consequent to the order dated 14.04.2015
which gives the benefit of declaration of probation of the petitioner with
retrospective effect from 07.09.2013 (on his completion of two years of
service).
9. The position of law on this aspect is well settled and similar
benefits have been given to similarly placed persons through the orders of
this Court. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the earlier judgment of
this Court rendered in W.P.(MD) No.28513 of 2023 dated 11.07.2024,
wherein it is held as under :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"4. The petitioners have been promoted to the post
of Assistant on 15.04.2013 in accordance with the order
of seniority. However, when the panel was prepared for
the next level promotion to the post of Superintendent on
26.04.2023, the name of the petitioners has also been
included in the panel. However, on 27.11.2023, an order
has been passed by removing 35 Assistants from the panel
stating that on 15.03.2013, which is a crucial date for
promotion to the post of Assistant, 35 persons inclusive of
petitioners did not complete the probation.
5. The impugned order has been passed on a
through misconception of the effect of declaring the
probation for the petitioners. Even the proceedings are
passed any time later than the completion of two years as
per the order declaring the probation, the completion of
probation is to be given with effect from the date of
completion of two years that is with effect from
17.09.2011, 18.09.2011 and 23.10.2011 respectively.
While preparing the panel for the next level of promotion,
a different outlook was given by the respondents stating
that all those persons whose probation have been
declared before 15.03.2012 alone will be considered for
promotion to the post of Superintendent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The delay in issuing the proceedings for
declaring the probation is beyond the control of the
individuals. So far as the individual employees are
concerned, they have successfully completed their
probation on par with their batchmates and their
completion of probation has also been declared on and
from the date of completion of two years of service. Just
because any administrative delay had occurred on the
side of the respondents to issue the proceedings later, the
individuals cannot be penalized.
7. It is not the submission of the respondents that
the petitioners' period of probation have been extended
for any reasons and in this regard, any proceedings have
been passed. In the absence of the same and also in the
absence of any fault on the side of the petitioners, it is
unfair on the part of the respondents to remove all those
persons whose probation have been completed on and
from the date during which they have completed two
years of service, irrespective of the fact whether the
proceedings for declaring the probation have been passed
any time later than 15.03.2012."
10. In the instant case also, the extension of period of probation is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner. Only in view of that, the
probation of the petitioner has been given with retrospective effect vide
proceedings dated 14.04.2015. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the
relief as prayed.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned
order passed in Na.Ka.No.18249/A4/E3/2017 dated 08.02.2018 by the
first respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to include the
name of the petitioner in the panel dated 15.03.2014 drawn for promotion
to the post of Assistant at the appropriate place and to consequently,
confer notional promotion to the petitioner in the post of Assistant with
retrospective effect and give all consequential benefits within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Index : Yes /No 06.02.2025
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
To
1.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
College Road,
Chennai District.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
District Chief Educational Office,
Thiruvannamalai District.
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
