Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Secretary To Government on 22 October, 2025
W.P.No.30838 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 8/10/2025
Pronounced on 22/10/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Writ Petition No.30838 of 2013
and
WM.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.35679 and 35676 of 2025
1. T. Agilandeswari
2. K. Kumaran
3. J. Sivakumar
4. K. Madhesh
5. K. Narayanamoorthi
6. C. Prabu
7. M. Arumugam
8. S. Ramani
9. P. Ranjitkumar
10. K. Mani
11. G. Mageshwaran
12. M. Balakrishnan
13. A. Sengottaiyan
14. A. Palanisamy
15. C. Gnanabarathi
16. M. Prakasam
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
W.P.No.30838 of 2013
17. C. Duraivel
18. V. Senthilkumar
19. D. Kavitha
20. V. Sathyapriya
21. V. Umapathi
22. E. Palanivel
23. J. Palani
24. R.Sugumaran
25. G. Moorthi
26. V. Sudhakar
27. A. Sivagnanam
28. K. Vijayalakshmi
29. L. Viji
30. G.S.Mala
31. A. Kamruthin
32. V. Saraswathi
33. D.Mullaikodi
34. A. Sudeshwari
35. L. Geetha
36. C. Kamarajan
37. C. Sakthivel
38. S. Anandhi
39. M. Karthik
40. L. Karthikeyan
41. K.Ezhilmozhi
42. V.Gnanadeepan
43. T. Jayanthi
44. M. Sivan
45. P. Anandamoorthi
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
W.P.No.30838 of 2013
46. G. Singaravelan
47. C. Kavitha
48. G. Sasikumar
49. Rathinamalai
50. R. Nasheeba
51. N. Arunkumar
52. C. Cheran ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Revenue Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
3. The District Collector
Dharmapuri District
Dharmapuri.
4. The District Revenue Officer
Dharmapuri District
Dharmapuri.
5. The Personal Assistant (General)
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
W.P.No.30838 of 2013
to the District Collector
Dharmapuri District
Dharmapuri.
6. K.C.Easwari
7. M.Rama
8. K.G.Thilagavathi
9. J. Sahimabee
10. V. Kasthuri
11. A.C.Nagaveni
12. M. Anbumani
13. K. Shaheentaj
14. G. Chinnapappa ... Respondents
PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records relating to the impugned order dated 12/9/2013 in
Ref.No.Na.Ka.6213/2013/A3 passed by the fourth respondent and quash
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
W.P.No.30838 of 2013
the same in so far as the respondents 6 to 14 are concerned relating to their
appointment/promotion as Assistants and consequently revert the
respondents 6 to 14 to the post of Typists.
For petitioners ... Mr.S.Thankasivan
For respondents ... Mr.V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader
for R.R.1 to 5
Mr.S.Vijayakumar
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Bharadwaj
for R.R.6, 8 to 12 and 14
No appearance
for R.R.7 and 13
-----
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated
12/9/2013 made in Ref.No.Na.Ka.6213/2013/A3 by the fourth respondent
and consequently revert the respondents 6 to 14 to the post of Typists.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:-
The petitioners 1 to 50 were employed as Assistants in the various
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
offices under the third respondent in Dharmapuri District. 51 st petitioner
was employed as Junior Assistant in the office of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Dharmapuri and 52nd petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant
in the office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri. Petitioner Nos.51 and 52
were appointed in the year 2007 and 2008, respectively. The petitioners 1
to 50 were appointed during the year 2012 – 2013. The respondents 6 to 14
who were employed as Typists were promoted as Assistants on 12/9/2013,
on the basis of the orders passed by the fourth respondent.
3. The impugned order dated 12/9/2013 promoting the respondents 6
to 14 as 'Assistants' was passed in violation of the specific terms and
conditions of G.O.Ms.No.417 dated 1/12/1993 which mandates one year
training for Typists for promotion to Junior Assistants. According to the
petitioners, the said compulsory training of the respondents 6 to 14 was not
completed as such the question of their promotion to Assistants does not
arise. Further, on account of the promotion given to the respondents 6 to
14, the seniority of all the petitioners would be adversely affected.
4. Heard Mr.S.Thankasivan, learned counsel for the petitioners,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
Mr.V.Nanmaran, learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned Senior Advocate for the
respondents 6, 8 to 12 and 14. There is no appearance on behalf of the
respondents 7 and 13.
5. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 6 to
14 did not undergo the mandatory training for a period of one year in
accordance with G.O.Ms.No.417, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(Per.B) Department, dated 1/12/1993. The promotion of respondents 6 to
14 who are appointed as Typists to the post of Assistants by virtue of the
orders of the fourth respondent has to be quashed, since the said orders are
illegal and based on fabricated records.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, mainly relied on
para 4 a, c, d in G.O.Ms.No.417, to buttress his argument that the
promotion of the respondents 6 to 14 is improper. Para 4 (h) is also
relevant and the paras are extracted hereunder.
a. For purpose of appointment to the post
of Assistant a combined seniority list of Junior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
Assistants and Typists shall be drawn hereafter as
observed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal.
c. All the seniors in the category of Typists
who are likely to get their promotion as Assistants
in the course of next one or two years shall be
asked to undergo training as Junior Assistants for
a period of one year by allotting a few subjects
covering different aspects of the department and
they shall be allowed to dispose of the files
without detriment to their typing work.
d. while selecting typists for training as
Junior Assistants, strict seniority shall be adhered
to.
h. for the existing vacancies in the
category of Assistant in the Tamil Nadu
Ministerial Service, the appointing authorities
shall draw a combined seniority list of Typists
and Junior Assistants with reference to the date of
their regular appointment keeping the
commission seniority in tact and fill up the
vacancies from this list without insisting on one
year training ordered, since the present vacancies
cannot be allowed to remain unfilled till the
typists undergo the training as Junior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
Assistants.”
7. According to 4 (h) of G.O.Ms.No.417, for the vacancy of Assistant
in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, the authorities shall draw a combined
seniority list of Typists (such as respondents 6 to 14) and Junior Assistants
such as petitioners 1 to 52 (petitioners herein) with reference to the date of
their regular appointment and accordingly, fill up the vacancies without
insisting on one year training.
8. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1582 of
2011 and W.P.No.16761 of 2011 P.T.RAVINDRANATH Vs. 1. THE
STATE OF TAMIL NADU, rep. BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, FORT
ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 9 AND 2 OTHERS held at paragraph No.4 as
under:-
“The issue as to whether the person can be
denied promotion for not possessing the service
qualification, without his default, if he is
otherwise qualified, was considered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1996
(8) SCC 671 (VIJAYWADA GUNTUR TENALI
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
OTHERS Vs. MOVVA RANGA RAO AND
OTHERS) and a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.Nos.509 TO 511 of 2008. In the above said
judgments, it is held that the Government Servant
cannot be denied promotion for want of service
qualification, if he was not given a chance to
acquire the service qualification by the
department head. As the department is bound to
place the Government servant in a particular
post, to acquire the service qualification, the
officer/employee cannot be blamed for not
possessing such service qualification. The
Department head failed to adhere to the direction
issued in the above Government Letter dated
11/1/2000. Similar issue was considered by one
of us (NPVJ) in the decision reported in 2012 (4)
MLJ 535 (A.BADHRACHALAM Vs.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER
OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION,
CHEPAUK, CHENNAI 600 005 AND
ANOTHER). In the said judgment, several
judgments on this line rendered earlier were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
followed and held that service qualification can
be acquired only if a posting is given in the
particular post by the head of the department and
the Government servant cannot be blamed. The
denial of promotion on that ground alone, if he is
otherwise qualified, is unreasonable and
arbitrary.”
9. It is for the concerned authority to provide and facilitate the typists
for undergoing one year training period. Even assuming that the
respondents 6 to 14 have not undergone the training, their promotion
cannot be denied. It is not the case of the petitioners that though the
training facility was extended to the respondents 6 to 14, they did not
undergo the said training.
10. It is not in dispute that for the post of Assistants, a ratio of 2 : 1
was followed, i.e., two from directly appointed Junior Assistants and one
from the category of Typists. The said ratio was scrupulously followed.
The writ petitioners cannot question the promotion of the respondents 6 to
14 only on the basis of their not undergoing the training. Since 4 (h) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
G.O.Ms.No.417 is clear and does not insist on one year training for the
vacancies of Assistants to be filled.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of
this Court in S.VELMURUGAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
VELLORE DISTRICT, VELLORE 9 AND 2 OTHERS (2012 SCC
ONLINE Mad 4639), however, the said judgment was reversed in appeal.
12. For all the above reasons, the writ petition fails and accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(K.SURENDER,J)
22/10/2025
mvs.
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
1. The Secretary to Government
Revenue Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
3. The District Collector
Dharmapuri District
Dharmapuri.
4. The District Revenue Officer
Dharmapuri District
Dharmapuri.
5. The Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector
Dharmapuri District
Dharmapuri.
K.SURENDER,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
mvs.
Pre-delivery order made in
22/10/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 04:56:54 pm )
