Madras High Court
Syamala D vs The Chairperson/Additional Chief ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
W.P.No. 19417 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-05-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
WP No. 19417 of 2025
and
WMP No.21674 of 2025
---
Syamala D. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairperson/Additional Chief Secretary
to Government, Planning, Development and
Special initiatives Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3. The Commissioner
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
4. The District Collector-cum-Chairman
Namakkal District Rural Development Agency
Namakkal Collectorate, Namakkal Districts. ..Respondents
1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
W.P.No. 19417 of 2025
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
impugned order of the 4th respondent vide proceeding in NA.KA.No.
1052/2022/A10, dated 03.04.2025 and direct the respondents to continue me as
Ombudsperson in the light of the guideline No.2.2.9 issued by the Government of
India in File No.M-11015/112022-RE-III (380157), dated 20th March, 2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.P. Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.P. Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader
---
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by
the fourth respondent vide proceeding in NA.KA.No. 1052/2022/A10, dated
03.04.2025 and for consequential direction to the respondents to continue the
petitioner as Ombudsperson in the light of the guideline No.2.2.9 issued by the
Government of India in File No.M-11015/112022-RE-III (380157), dated 20th
March, 2023.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she submitted a representation to
the 3rd respondent requesting an extension of her tenure in accordance with the
aforesaid guidelines. It was, however, rejected by the 3rd respondent by his
2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
proceedings dated 03.04.2025 and thereby refused to extend her tenure and
relieved her from the post of Ombudsman. This order is now under challenge in
the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner was selected for the
post of Ombudsman for redressal of grievances under Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme [MGNREGS] by the Government of Tamil
Nadu vide G.O.(Ms).No.34, Rural Development Department, dated 21.03.2022.
In pursuance of the same, the 3rd respondent selected her to the post of
Ombudsman, appointed and posted her for Namakkal District by issuing an order
of appointment dated 28.03.2022. As per Clause 2.2.9 of the said guidelines, the
Ombudsperson shall be appointed for a tenure of two years extendable not more
than twice by one year each based on a performance appraisal process or till the
incumbent attains the age of 68 years whichever is earlier. In respect of
Ombudsperson of 21 Districts, two years have been extended by following the
guidelines in G.O.(Ms).No.94, Rural Development Department, dated 22.05.2024
issued by the Government of India.
3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
5. It is also seen that the Ombudsperson shall be appointed for tenure of 2
(two) years extendable not more than twice by one year each based on a
performance appraisal process or till the incumbent attains the age of 68 (sixty-
eight) years, whichever is earlier. There shall be no reappointment.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would in support of the claim for
extension of the tenure of the petitioner for further one year would place much
reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ramakrishnan K.M. v. Union of India
in W.P.(C).Nos. 7976 and 2868 of 2024, dated 17.03.2025, wherein the relevant
Paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 which are extracted hereunder:-
“8. I have considered the submissions. The Court is
required to give correct construction to the language employed in
Clause 2.2.9 of the guidelines dated 20.03.2023 issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development. The said
Clause has already been extracted above. The sentence; “The
Ombudsperson shall be appointed for tenure of 2 (two) years
extendable not more than twice by one year each based on a
performance appraisal process....” is a 'single sentence'. Only one
verb 'shall' has been used in the sentence. Therefore, this
sentence cannot be broken into separate sentences. Thus, the
performance appraisal is mandatory on completion of two years
4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
of initial tenure and if in the performance appraisal, the work and
conduct of the Ombudsman is found satisfactory, his services
ought to be extended for a period of one year, and thereafter, for a
period of another one year that too, on the basis of the second
performance appraisal.
9. I am of the considered view that the State Government
does not have the discretion not to conduct the performance
appraisal and without conducting the performance appraisal
terminates the 2025-KER-23273 appointment of the Ombudsman
on expiry of two years. Thus, it is held that conducting the
performance appraisal is mandatory, his service should be
extended for another one year, and thereafter, for another one
year that too based on the performance appraisal.
10. Thus, the present writ petitions are hereby allowed.
The Government may conduct performance appraisal of the
working of the petitioners, and if it is found that their work and
conduct are satisfactory, they should be allowed to continue till
they complete their extendable tenure as Ombudsman. If the
Government decides not to take the exercise of performance
appraisal, the petitioner should be allowed to continue to
complete their extended time as per the guidelines. It is,
however, made clear that the Government may go ahead with the
selection of the new Ombudsman but, they shall be appointed
5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
only after the extended tenure of the petitioners gets completed.”
7. The learned Special Government Pleader would on the other hand bring
to the notice of this court the order of this court dated 27.06.2024 made in
W.P.No.16820 of 2024 (Gopinath v. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai).
8. I have considered the rival submissions carefully.
9. Admittedly, the post is a tenure post. The petitioner was given one year
extension. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was not given consideration
for an extension even though her service is extendable for another one year.
10. In an identical issue, the Madurai Bench of this Court, vide order dated
27.08.2019 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 5632 to 5634 of 2015, has held that the extension
of tenure cannot be claimed as a matter of right of the petitioner, but it should be
on the mutual agreement basis. The said view was also followed by a learned
6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
single judge of this Court in W.P.No. 16820 of 2024 vide order dated 27.06.2024.
11. Thus, this court is also of the view that the extension of tenure for
further one year cannot be claimed as a matter of right and extension of tenure
must be on the mutual agreement basis.
12. In the light of the above legal position, the writ petition shall stand
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.05.2025
kmk/msm
7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director
Government Examinations
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Government Examination
(Personnel),
Office of Director of Government Examinations
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai – 600 006.
8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
kmk/msm
28.05.2025
9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:21 pm )
