L.L.S.Manikghantan, Selection v. The Managing Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.Nos.18970, 18972 & 18973 of 2016 L.L.S.Manikghantan Son of L.Sukumaran Pillai ... Petitioner in W.P.No.22235/2016 M.Ingarsal S/o.P.Mani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.22236/2016 J.Raji W/o.C.Vasu ... Petitioner in W.P.No.22237/2016 vs.
1.
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Ltd., TANTEA Complex Coonoor, Nilgiris District - 643 101.
... Respondents in all WPs 2.
The Divisional Manager TANTEA Lawson Tea Division Cinchona Post Valparai - 642 106 Coimbatore District.
... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.22235/2016 3.
The Divisional Manager TANTEA Page Nos.1/9
Naduvattam Tea division Naduvattam P.O.
Nilgiris District - 643 224.
... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.22236/2016 4.
The Administrative Officer The Tamilnadu Tea Plantation Corporation ltd., Coonoor, Nilgiris District - 643 101.
... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.22237/2016 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the order in Pro.No.5361/2010/E2 dated 18.06.2016 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioners and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to promote the petitioners as Senior Draughting Officers in the available vacancy. For Petitioners in all WPs :
Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents in all WPs :
Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., ***** C O M M O N O R D E R The challenge in these three writ petitions is to the common order dated 18.06.2016, bearing Reference No. Pro.No.5361/2010/E2, passed by the first respondent. By the said impugned common order, the petitioners' promotions to the post of Draughting Officers were revoked, and they were reverted to the post of Junior Draughting Officers with effect from the date of the impugned order.
Page Nos.2/9
2. The petitioners, while serving as Junior Draughting Officers, were promoted to the post of Draughting Officers vide order dated 18.12.2008. Thereafter, one Ravichandran, who had been denied promotion on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, submitted a representation seeking promotion to the post of Draughting Officer. Acting on the said representation, the first respondent, by the impugned proceedings, revoked the promotions granted to the petitioners on the ground that promotion to the post of Draughting Officer is based on merit-cum-seniority and that juniors to the petitioners, who were within the zone of consideration, were not considered for promotion. It was therefore held that the promotions granted to the petitioners were in contravention of the rules governing promotion to the said post.
3. Mr. M. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the promotions granted to the petitioners were neither obtained by misrepresentation nor by fraud, and therefore, the reversion of the petitioners after a lapse of eight years is impermissible in law. He further submitted that, as per G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 11.03.1987, the petitioners are entitled to promotion to the post of Draughting Officer upon completion of the Page Nos.3/9
stipulated period of service. In support of his submission reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court.
4. Per contra, Mr. P. Raghunathan, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that Rule 10(i) of the Staff Service Rules governing promotions categorically provides that promotions shall be made on the basis of merit and ability. Therefore, the promotions granted to the petitioners without considering their juniors were contrary to the said rule, and the respondent Corporation was justified in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court. He further submitted that the respondent Corporation is facing financial constraints and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any monetary benefits.
5. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and the materials available on record have been duly considered.
6. Admittedly, the relevant rule stipulates that promotion shall be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, all persons who were within the zone of consideration, including those who Page Nos.4/9
were juniors to the petitioners, ought to have been considered for promotion to the said post. It is also admitted that the said juniors had no grievance with regard to the promotions granted to the petitioners. However, the first respondent, suo motu, on the basis of the representation submitted by Ravichandran, passed the impugned order. The promotions were granted to the petitioners on 18.12.2008, whereas the impugned common order reverting them to their original posts was passed only on 18.06.2016, i.e., after a lapse of more than eight years.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. Hameed v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2001) 9 SCC 261, has held that even if an appointment is temporary or irregular in nature, reversion should be effected within a reasonable period. In Union of India and another v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decision in Indian Council of Agricultural Research and another v. T.K. Suryanarayanan and others, held that where an erroneous promotion is granted due to incorrect interpretation of the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from rectifying the mistake by correctly applying the rules, even if such correction causes hardship to the employee, as courts cannot ignore Page Nos.5/9
statutory rules.
8. However, in the present case, the petitioners are otherwise eligible and entitled to promotion to the post of Draughting Officers. Therefore, the aforesaid decision in Union of India and another (supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the present case. In the light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. Hameed (supra), the impugned order, having been passed after a lapse of more than eight years, cannot be said to have been issued within a reasonable time. In the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining the promotions, the impugned order passed after such an inordinate delay is not legally sustainable.
9. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners have been continuously working in the capacity of Draughting Officers and receiving the salary attached to the promoted post. At this stage, the promotions granted to the petitioners cannot be disturbed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not legally sustainable.
Page Nos.6/9
10. In the light of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The captioned Writ Petitions stand allowed; (ii) The impugned common order dated 18.06.2016 bearing reference Pro.No.5361/2010/E2 is hereby quashed; (iii) The petitioners are entitled for attendant and other consequential benefits flowing from this order; (iv) The respondent - Corporation is directed to give effect to this order, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
28.01.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk To 1.
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation ltd., TANTEA Complex Coonoor, Nilgiris District - 643 101.
Page Nos.7/9
2.
The Divisional Manager TANTEA, Lawson Tea Division Cinchona Post, Valparai - 642 106 Coimbatore District.
3.
The Divisional Manager TANTEA Naduvattam Tea division Naduvattam P.O.
Nilgiris District - 643 224.
4.
The Administrative Officer The Tamilnadu Tea Plantation Corporation ltd., Coonoor, Nilgiris District - 643 101.
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mk Page Nos.8/9
28.01.2026 Page Nos.9/9