Madras High Court
T. Meenakshisundaram vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 27 June, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.9720 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 20.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.9720 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.7721 to 7723 of 2016
T. Meenakshisundaram,
S/o. Late. R. Thisai Veera Pandiyan,
Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its-
Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort-St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Revenue Administration Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
Ramanathapuram Post & District.
4.Mr. K. Shanmugasundar,
Special Tahsildar (Social Security Scheme),
Muthukulatur Taluk Office,
Muthukulathur Post,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.9720 of 2016
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ to call for the
records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 3 rd Respondent
in proceedings Na.Ka.Al/001/2016 dated 03.05.2016 and Quash the same
and consequently direct, the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the
post of Tahsildar on par with his immediate junior and to grant all
attendant and monetary benefits and to pass any other further or other
orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render
justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.7721 of 2016:
To Dispense with the production of the certified copy of the
impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent in Proceedings
Na.Ka.No.Al/001/2016 dated 03.05.2016, and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.7722 of 2016:
To Direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of
Tahsildar in Ramanathapuram District immediately, pending disposal of
the Writ Petition and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) No.7723 of 2016:
To pass an order of Injunction restraining the 3rd Respondent from
preparing the panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in
Ramanathapuram District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and thus
render justice.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.9720 of 2016
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Vijay for Mr.M.Saravana Kumar
For Respondents : Mr. V. Omprakash, Government Advocate
for R1 to R3.
R4 – No appearance.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The petitioner who aspires to be promoted to the post of
Tahsildar in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service, has been
persistently litigating his claim. He has filed 8 writ, apart from five
contempt applications so far. Even as per his own statement, as well as
the third respondent’s statement, some writ petitions filed by the
petitioner are still pending consideration by Courts.
3.It is unnecessary to traverse the details of those cases for the
purpose of disposing of the present writ petition. In this writ petition, the
petitioner has challenged the temporary promotion granted to the fourth
respondent to the post of Tahsildar and seeks a direction to respondents 1
to 3 to promote him instead to the said post, along with all consequential
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
4.The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on
compassionate grounds. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of
Assistant, and subsequently as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. For the year 2014,
the petitioner’s name was included in the panel for promotion to the post
of Tahsildar, notwithstanding the fact that he did not possess the full
qualifications as required under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate
Service Rules. Specifically, he required relaxation under Rule 7(b) and
Rule 8(a). Initially, the third respondent recommended grant of relaxation
under these rules. However, that recommendation was later withdrawn by
order dated 26.02.2016. Significantly, that withdrawal order is not under
challenge in the present writ petition.
5.The impugned promotion of the fourth respondent was granted on
03.05.2016 under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service
Rules, which permits temporary and ad hoc promotions in administrative
exigencies. The third respondent has explained the circumstances under
which the temporary promotion was extended to the fourth respondent.
The circumstances under which such promotion was granted were
explained by the third respondent in his counter affidavit, which reads as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
“For the clarification sought for by the Collector,
Ramanathapuram as per the letter No. Ser.3(4)/15452/2014
dated 30.01.2016 the CRA has instructed the Collector
Ramanathapuram as follows:
“4) jkpHe; hL khepy kw;Wk; rhu;epiy tpjp 39(a)(i) kw;Wk; jkpHe; hL
tUtha; rhu;epiyg; gzp tpjp 5(h) Mfpatw;wpd; go eput ; hf eyd;
fUjpak[ .; kw;Wk; mtru epiy fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk; epakhd mjpfhup
cupa jFjpfis bgw;Ws;s egu;fSf;F jw;fhypf gjtp
cau;t[ tH';fyhk; vd bjuptpff; g;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjdog;gilapy; jh';fs;
epakhd mjpfhup vd;w Kiwapy; ,t;tYtyf ghu;it xd;wpy;
fhZk; fojj;jpy; bjuptpjJ ; s;sjd; mog;gilapy; eltof;if
nkw;bfhs;SkhW ,jd; K:yk; bjuptpff; g;gLfpwJ/”
In this context it is submitted that out of 15 persons included
in the 2014 Tahsildar's Panel 7 Persons were already
promoted as Tahsildar, who are all fully qualified as per
rules and 5 of them were already reverted as Deputy
Tahsildar for want of Vacancies in the cadre of Tahsildar and
2 of them went on leave. As such there is no question of
urgency or need to promote anybody as Tahsildar by giving
temporary promotion. As such, no necessity arises to
promote the Writ Petitioner as Tahsildar before the
Government issues order relaxing the rule 8(a) of TNRSS in
his favour.”
6.In view of the above, the challenge laid by the petitioner to the
temporary promotion of the fourth respondent appears wholly
misconceived. As regards the petitioner’s own claim for promotion, it has
been categorically stated by the third respondent that the panel for the
year 2014 has already lapsed. The relevant portion of the counter
affidavit reads thus:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
“However their names were included in the 2014 Tahsildar
Panel along with 7 other fully qualified persons according to
their seniority in the feeder category subject to condition
that their promotion to the cadre of Tahsildar will be
considered only after obtaining relaxation to the Tamil
Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules 8(a) from the
Government. As per this office Letter No. Al/36000/2014
dated 20.03.2015 proposal was sent to the Government
through Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai
to get orders of the Government relaxing rule 8(a) of Tamil
Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules in favour of the
Writ Petitioner and 7 others similarly placed in his position.”
“Further it is stated that the 2014 Tahsildar Panel is lapsed
on 09.02.2016 in respect of those who have not acted as
Tahsildar up to the above date, as the panel was published on
10.02.2015 and the validity of one year period ended on
09.02.2016 as per explanation-I under General rule 4 of
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.”
“The petitioner Meenakshi Sundaram is a non Graduate.
Though he was senior to K.Shanmugasundaram he was not
promoted as Deputy Tahsildar on 23.05.2011 as per the
judgement of Honourable Supreme Court of India in SLP Ns
9628/2006 and 8848/2008. Later he was promoted as Deputy
Tahsildar on14.09.2013 as per the judgement of the
Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High court in
W.A(MD).Nos.1285 to l290/2011 and as per GO MS No
454, Revenue Service 3(2) Department, dated: 16.08.2013.
The Deputy Tahsildar promotion effected on him is not
absolute and is subject to the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court of India in the SLP (civil) nos 36750 to
36754 / 2012 filed against the judgment of the Honourable
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.(MD) No.
1285 to 1290 / 2011. Hence accordingly the petitioner is
completing probation on 13.09.2015 only and he is not
eligible to be included in the panel for the year 2013 & 2014.
In addition there was impediment of punishment of stoppage
increment for six month to include the petitioner in 2013
panel . For the panel for 2014 his name was included and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
relaxation of rule 8(a) was sought from the Government in
favour of the petitioner. All these drawal of panel an d
promotion effected are subject to the outcome of the
judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India in SLP
filed against the judgment of Honourable Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court. The Government took all these factors
into consideration and did not give relaxation of rule 8(a) of
Tamilnadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules in favour of
petitioner and 7 others until the panel lapsed on 10.02.2016.”
7.In view of the above factual and legal position, the question of
entertaining the petitioner’s writ petition seeking for relief of promotion
to the post of Tahsildar does not arise. Hence the writ petition stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
27.06.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort-St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
2.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Revenue Administration Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
Ramanathapuram Post & District.
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.7721 to 7723 of 2016
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
