[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
N.Sankaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 January, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 08.01.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 20.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
and WMP(MD).Nos.539 & 542 of 2022
1.N.Sankaran ....Petitioner in WP(MD).No.671 of 2022
2.M.Kathiravan ....Petitioner in WP(MD).No.672 of 2022
3.A.Kasali ....Petitioner in WP(MD).No.673 of 2022
4.A.Subramanian ....Petitioner in WP(MD).No.674 of 2022
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Department
Fort St.George, Chennai -09
2.The Director
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department
Panagal Building, Saidapet
Chennai 600 015
3.The District Collector
Tirunelveli District
Collectorate, Tirunelveli ....Respondents 1 to 3
in all the writ petitions
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
4.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats)
Nanguneri Panchayat Union Office
Nanguneri Post, Tirunelveli District
....4th respondent in WP.No.671 of 2022
5.The Block Development Officer (Va.U)
Manoor Panchayat Union Office
Manoor Post, Tirunelveli District ....4th respondent in WP.No.672 of 2022
6.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat)
Vallioor Panchayat Union Office
Vallioor Post, Tirunelveli District ....4th respondent in WP.No.673 of 2022
7.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat)
Radhapuram Panchayat Union Office
Radhapuram Post, Tirunelveli District
....4th respondent in WP.No.674 of 2022
5.R.Basheer
Deputy Block Development Officer (Zonal)
Division-I
Nanguneri Panchayat Union Office
Nanguneri Post, Tirunelveli District
6.G.Kannan
Deputy Block Development Officer (Zonal)
Division IV
Manoor Panchayat Union Office
Manoor Post, Tirunelveli District .....Respondents 5 & 6
in all the writ petitions
Prayer in WP(MD).No.671 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 1st
Respondent in Letter No.12299/E6 (2)/2021-3 dated 21.09.2021 and the
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
consequential order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-5 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No.
Gna3/11568/2020 dated 28.12.2021 and the consequential order passed by
the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/1990/2021 dated 30.12.2021 and quash
the same and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to grant all attendant
and monetary benefits to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Block
Development Officer.
Prayer in WP(MD).No.672 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 1st
Respondent in Letter No.12299/E6 (2)/2021-4 dated 21.09.2021 and the
consequential order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-5 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No.
Gna3/11568/2020 dated 28.12.2021 and the consequential order passed by
the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/13501/2021 and quash the same and
consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to grant all attendant and
monetary benefits to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Block Development
Officer.
Prayer in WP(MD).No.673 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 1st
Respondent in Letter No.12299/E6 (2)/2021-2 dated 21.09.2021 and the
consequential order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-4 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No.
Gna1/22441/2021-5 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No. Gna3/11568/2020
dated 28.12.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 4th Respondent
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
in Na.Ka.No.Aa4/5255/2021 dated 30.12.2021 and quash the same and
consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to grant all attendant and
monetary benefits to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Block Development
Officer.
Prayer in WP(MD).No.674 of 2022: This Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the 1st
Respondent in Letter No.12299/E6 (2)/2021-5 dated 21.09.2021 and the
consequential order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No. Gna1/22441/2021-1 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No.
Gna1/22441/2021-2 dated 04.12.2021 and Na.Ka.No. Gna3/22441/2021-3
dated 04.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the
Respondents 1 to 4 to grant all attendant and monetary benefits to the
petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officer.
(In all the writ petitions)
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam
Government Advocate for R1 to R3
:Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian for R4
:Mr.G.Karthik
for M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy & Associates
for R5 & R6
COMMON ORDER
These four writ petitions have been filed by Deputy Block
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
Development Officers working in Rural Development Department,
Tirunelveli District challenging the revision of seniority and order of
reversion.
(A).Facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:
2.All the four writ petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants on
temporary basis through Employment Exchange in the year 2003 when there
was a strike by the Government employees. They were regularised in the year
2009 after passing a special examination conducted by TNPSC. Out of the
four writ petitioners, two of them namely N.Sankaran and M.Kathiravan,
have passed the departmental examinations in May 2012 and also passed
Bhavanisagar Training. Their probation was declared on 24.05.2012 and
28.05.2012 respectively. Their names were included in the panel for
promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 2012 and they were granted
temporary promotion on 03.12.2012. Their names were included for
promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer for the year
2017 and they were promoted as Deputy Block Development Officers on
27.03.2018.
3.As far as the other two writ petitioners namely Kasali and
Subramanian are concerned, they were regularised in the year 2009 by way of
a special examinations conducted by TNPSC. Both of them cleared
departmental examination in December 2011. The said Kasali passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
Bhavanisagar examination on 25.05.2012 and the said Subramanian has
cleared Bhavanisagar training on 04.10.2012. Their probation was declared in
23.12.2011. Their names were included in the panel for promotion in the year
2012 to the post of Assistant. Kasali is temporarily promoted as Assistant on
03.12.2012 and Subramanian was promoted on 01.02.2014. Their names were
included in the panel for the year 2017 for promotion to the post of Deputy
Block Development Officer. Based upon the panel, Kasali was promoted as
Deputy Block Development Officer on 27.03.2018 and Subramanian was
promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 03.11.2017.
4.TNPSC had conducted a direct recruitment to the post of Assistant
and the private respondents namely respondents 5 and 6 were appointed as
Assistants on 03.12.2012. They had filed WP(MD).No.11678 of 2017 before
this Court challenging seniority granted to the promotee Assistants ahead of
the directly recruited Assistant. This writ petition was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge on 16.06.2014 and they preferred WA(MD).No.885 of
2018. The writ appeal was dismissed on 25.10.2018 with an observation that
the temporary promotion granted in favour of promotees has been regularised
by the Government with effect from the initial date of temporary promotion
and having not challenged the said regularization, the inter se seniority
cannot be refixed.
5.Thereafter, they approached the Director of Rural Development and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
Panchayat Raj Department questioning the panel for promotion for the post of
Assistant to Deputy Block Development Officer for the year 2016, 2017 and
2018. The directly recruited assistants had attacked the grant of temporary
promotion in favour of the writ petitioners herein along with others on the
ground that all four of them were not qualified to be included in the panel for
temporary promotion to the post of Assistant as on the crucial date namely
15.03.2012. According to them, all the four writ petitioners were not qualified
on the said crucial date and therefore, their names should have been included
only in 2013 panel. As a consequence, when the seniority is revised in the
cadre of Assistant and their names could not find place in the panel for the
year 2017 for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer.
6.The Director Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
considered the said representation after hearing the objection raised by the
writ petitioners herein, and passed an order on 13.12.2018. As far as the
petitioners Sankaran and Kathiravan are concerned, it was found that they
have cleared in the departmental examination only in May 2012 which is
beyond the crucial date namely 15.12.2012. Therefore, their names cannot be
included in the panel for the year 2012. The petitioners namely Kasali and
Subramanian are concerned, they had cleared Bhavanisagar training only in
May 2012 and October 2012 which is also beyond the cruical date namely
15.03.2012. Therefore, the Director found that all four of them were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
qualified to be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant in
the year 2012.
7.Challenging the order of Director, the petitioners had preferred an
appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent has passed an order on
21.09.2021 confirming the order of the second respondent namely the
Director. As a consequence, the District Collector has passed an order on
04.12.2021 revising the seniority of Sankaran and Kathiravan and a
consequential order was passed by him on 28.12.2021 reverting them from
the post of Deputy Block Development Officer to that of the Assistant.
Thereafter, the said Sankaran and Karthiravan have been issued with a
relieving order on 30.12.2021. These orders are put to challenge in the
present writ petitions.
8.As far as Kasali and Subramanian are concerned, the first respondent
has passed an order on 21.09.2021 confirming the order of the second
respondent. Three consequential orders were passed by the District Collector
on 04.12.2021 amending the date of declaration of probation, revision of
seniority and deleting their names from 2017 panel for the post of Deputy
Block Development Officer and a consequential order was passed on
28.12.2021 reverting them from the post of Deputy Block Development
Officer to that of the Assistant. These orders are also under challenge.
9.Since the facts in all the four cases are intertwined, they are tagged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
together and a common order is being passed.
(B).Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side are as
follows:
10.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the name of
all the four petitioners were included in the panel for the year 2012 for
promoting them as Assistant. Thereafter, their names were included in the
panel for the year 2017 for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer.
After 9 years, the present impugned orders has been passed by the first
respondent revising the seniority and reverting them back to the post of
Assistant. After such a long delay, the present orders should not have been
passed.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the order
passed in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018 and contended that
when the previous attempt made by the direct recruitees to place them ahead
of the promotees was not successful. Without considering the said judgment,
the present impugned order has been passed by the first respondent.
Therefore, the present impugned orders are in violation of the order of this
Court in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018. All other orders passed by the
respondents 3 and 4 are only the consequential orders revising the seniority
and reverting them as Assistant. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ
petitions and to restore their seniority and promotion with all attendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
benefits.
12.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the official respondents submitted that Sankaran and Kathiravan had cleared
the departmental test only in May 2012, after the crucial date namely
15.03.2012, for inclusion in the panel for promotion in the year 2012.
Without looking at the same, erroneously their names were included in the
panel. When the mistake was found out, it has been rectified. As far as Kasali
and Subramanian are concerned, they did not clear the Bhavanisagar training
in their first attempt and they cleared it only in May 2012 and October 2012
which is beyond the crucial date namely 15.03.2012. Therefore, their names
also should not have been included in the panel for the year 2012. In such
circumstances, when the names of all the four writ petitioners are moved to
2013 panel, quite naturally the seniority of the writ petitioners would get
affected and their names cannot be included in the panel for the post of
Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2017. In such circumstances,
he submitted that the mistake having been found out, the authorities are
entitled to reverse the seniority.
13.The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that
the seniority of the writ petitioners was continuously under the litigation
before this Court and therefore, they cannot contend that after a period of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
years, their seniority has been revised and they have been reverted. Hence, he
prayed for sustaining the orders passed by the official respondents.
14.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted
that the crucial date for inclusion of the names of Junior Assistant for
promotion to the post of Assistant is 15th March every year. All the petitioners
having not been qualified on the 15th March 2012, their names ought not to
have been included in their panel for the said year. Erroneously their names
have been included and they also got a consequential promotion to the next
level namely to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer. Therefore,
the direct recruitees had given a representation to the second respondent
challenging the panel to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer for
the year 2017. In such circumstances, after considering the submissions on
either side, the second respondent was pleased to pass an order deleting the
name of the writ petitioners from the panel for the year 2017 for promotion to
the post of Deputy Block Development Officer. Hence, he prayed for
sustaining the order passed by the authorities.
15.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
(C).Discussion:
16.As far as the petitioners namely Sankaran and Kathiravan, they have
cleared the departmental test only in May 2012. The crucial date for inclusion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
of names for promotion to the post of Assistant is 15th of March every year.
Therefore, both of them were not qualified for inclusion of their names in
2012 panel. However, their names have been erroneously included in the said
panel, probably relying upon the fact that they have cleared Bhavanisagar
training prior to the crucial date. Based upon their inclusion in the panel for
the year 2012, both of them were temporarily promoted as Assistant on
03.12.2012. Based upon their seniority in the cadre of Assistant, their names
were included in the panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer
for the year 2017 and got their promotion as Deputy Block Development
Officer on 27.03.2018. When the names of these writ petitioners can get
included for the post of Assistant only in the year 2013, inclusion of their
names in the panel for the year 2017 for the post of Deputy Block
Development Officer would also get affected.
17.As far as the petitioners name namely Kasali and Subramanian are
concerned, they have cleared the departmental test in December 2011, they
were not able to clear the Bhavanisagar training in their first attempt. They
have cleared it on 25.12.2012 and 04.10.2012 which is beyond the crucial
date namely 15.03.2012. They managed to get their names included in the
panel for the year 2012 for promotion to the post of Assistant and they got
temporary promotion on 03.12.2012 and 01.12.2014 respectively.
Consequently, their names also got included in the panel for promotion to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
post of Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2017 and they got
promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 27.03.2018 and
03.11.2017 respectively. These petitioners have cleared Bhavanisagar training
only in May 2012, erroneously their probation has been declared in
December 2011 itself relying upon the fact that they have passed
departmental examination. Therefore, the authorities were constrained to
cancel the declaration of probation on 23.12.2012 and they have declared it
from the date of passing of Bhavanisagar training. In such view of the matter,
this Court does find any error in the order passed by the authorities.
18.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the inter se
seniority between the direct recruitees and the promotee assistants was settled
by this Court in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018. In such
circumstances, it cannot be resurrected by another litigation. I have gone
through the order passed in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018. That was filed for
fixation of inter se seniority between the direct recruitee assistants and the
promotee assistants. In that case, the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to
hold that the temporary promotion granted in favour of the promotees has
been regularized by the Government which has not been challenged by the
direct recruitees.
19.Based upon the said temporary promotion, the seniority of the
promotees was upheld. However, in the present case, a question has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
raised whether the present four writ petitioners would be entitled for
temporary promotion as Assistant in the year 2012 at all.
20.According to the official respondents, the petitioners were not
qualified on the crucial date namely 15.03.2012. Either they have not cleared
the departmental test or Bhavanisagar training on the said date. Therefore,
they were not fully qualified to be included in the panel for the year 2012.
However, erroneously their names were included in the panel for the year
2012 and got promoted in December 2012. Based upon the said seniority, in
the cadre of Assistant, the petitioners' names were included in 2017 panel for
promotion to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer also.
21.In WA(MD).No.885 of 2018, the temporary promotion granted to
the writ petitioner was not in dispute. The present dispute is about the rights
of the writ petitioners to get promoted as Assistants. When they are not
qualified for promotion, they cannot blame the direct recruitees for lodging a
complaint as against them. It does not relate to inter se seniority. Probably the
revision of seniority may be a consequential event. Therefore, the order in the
writ appeal in WA(MD).No.885 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018 cannot come to the
rescue of the writ petitioners.
22.As far as the writ petitioners Sankaran and Kathiravan are
concerned, the first respondent had dismissed their appeal confirming that
they were not qualified to be included to the panel for the post of Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
for the year 2012. Consequently, the order of revision of seniority and
reversion from the post of Deputy Block Development Officer to the post of
Assistant has been passed by the third respondent. Therefore, there is no
illegality or infirmity in this order. As far as the writ petitioners Kasali and
Subramanian are concerned, the first respondent had dismissed the appeal
upholding the facts that they are not qualified to include their names in the
panel for the post of Assistant in the year 2012. The consequential orders
have been passed by the third respondent on 04.12.2021 altering the date of
declaration of probation, revision of seniority and reversion from the post of
Deputy Block Development Officer to the post of Assistant.
23.As far as Subramanian is concerned, he has not chosen to challenge
the order of reversion dated 28.12.2021 for the reasons best known to him.
Without challenging the order of reversion, challenging the other orders
would not be of any consequence.
24.The petitioners got their names included in the panel to the post of
Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2017. Immediately, the direct
recruitees have filed WP(MD).No.11678 of 2017. The writ petition was
dismissed by the writ Court and confirmed in the writ appeal with regard to
inter se seniority. While the writ petition was pending, the direct recruitees
have approached the second respondent questioning the inclusion of the
names of the writ petitioners in the panel for the year 2012 for temporary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
promotion to the post of Assistant. In the said representation, orders were
passed by the second respondent on 13.12.2018 and the appellate authority
namely the first respondent has passed the orders on 21.09.2021. Therefore,
right from the date of inclusion of the name of the writ petitioners in the
panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2017, the
present litigation is going on. In such an event, the order of reversion passed
by the authority cannot be attacked on the ground that the same has been
passed after nine years.
(D).Conclusion:
25.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the
writ petitions. All the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.01.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Department
Fort St.George, Chennai -09
2.The Director
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department
Panagal Building, Saidapet
Chennai 600 015
3.The District Collector
Tirunelveli District
Collectorate, Tirunelveli
4.The Section Officer
V.R.Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.(MD).Nos.671 to 674 of 2022
and WMP(MD).Nos.539 & 542 of 2022
20.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 01:20:49 pm )
