Madras High Court
The Transport Commissioner vs M.Kavitha on 24 September, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.2878 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A.No.2878 of 2025
1. The Transport Commissioner
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Deputy Transport Commissioner
Erode Region, Erode.
3. The Regional Transport Officer
Kumarapalayam. .. Appellants
Vs.
M.Kavitha .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order made in W.P.No.28673 of 2024 dated 26.02.2025.
For the Appellants : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh
Special Government Pleader
For the Respondent : Mr.L.G.Sahadevan
for Mr.A.Ilayaperumal
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
The present intra-Court writ appeal has been directed against
the order passed by the Writ Court dated 26.02.2025 made in
W.P.No.28673 of 2024.
2. The issue raised in the writ petition was that the writ
petitioner had become eligible to be considered for promotion to the
post of Assistant. The crucial date to prepare the Panel, consisting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
of the Junior Assistants to the post of Assistants, for the Panel Year
2021-22 was 15.03.2021. On that date, no charge was pending
against the writ petitioner or was not issued against him.
3. Despite that, his name has not been included because,
subsequently, in the year 2023, charges have been framed against
the writ petitioner and the Panel Year 2021-22, since was prepared
only in the year 2024, the employer thought it that, since the
charges have subsequently been issued at the time of consideration
of the Panel, his name could not be included in the Panel for the
purpose of promotion.
4. That is how promotion has been denied to the writ
petitioner, as against which, he preferred the said writ petition and
the same was allowed by the Writ Court through the order
impugned.
5. Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants made submissions that,
subsequently, charge memo has been filed against the
respondent/writ petitioner and at the time of consideration of
preparation of the Panel, since charges have already been issued,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
the writ petitioner has not been included in the Panel.
6. This submission is not impressive, because, the fact
remains that the crucial date was 15.03.2021 and that alone could
be taken into account for the purpose of emplanelling the persons
for promotional avenue and on 15.03.2021, admittedly, the
respondent/writ petitioner has completed probation and no charges
were pending against him. Therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner
is entitled to get included in the Panel for promotion.
7. This view has been taken by the learned Judge in the writ
petition, which has been allowed through the impugned order and
we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the same.
Resultantly, the present writ appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.23284 of 2025 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.)
24.09.2025
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
(drm)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
To:
1. The Transport Commissioner
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Deputy Transport Commissioner
Erode Region, Erode.
3. The Regional Transport Officer
Kumarapalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
(drm)
24.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
