The Additional Chief Secretary To Governmnet, v. R.Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP No. 9187 of 2026
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing, (Ser.3(2) Section), Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3. The District Collector Villupuram District.
..Appellant(s) Vs R.Radhakrishnan, S/o. Ranganathan, Senior Revenue Inspector, Collectorate Office, Villupuram.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 13.10.2025 made in WP No. 5418 of 2021 and allow this Writ Appeal. For Appellant(s):
Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. S.Yeshwanth, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent(s):
Mr. Vijayakumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.N.Pandian
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SENTHILKUMAR J.) This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.5418 of 2021 dated 13.10.2025. 2.The respondent/writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition to include his name in the panel drawn for the year 2017 for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. Before the writ Court, the Appellants herein have contended that an FIR was registered in Crime No.3 of 2014 dated 19.06.2014 against the writ petitioner/respondent and a charge sheet was also filed before the Special Court for Vigilance and anti-corruption cases, Villupuram on 01.11.2017.
3.The case of the respondent/writ petitioner is that, as per Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and Sub-clause
(5) Part A of Schedule XI, only if specific charges are framed or charge sheet has been filed in a criminal case on the crucial date, the name of the candidate shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list. In the present case, the crucial date is 15.09.2017, whereas the charge sheet was filed only on 01.11.2017. Therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner claimed that his name ought to have been considered for inclusion in the panel drawn for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. After considering all the facts, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been filed.
4.The learned Senior counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the present writ appeal filed by the Appellants has no merits, as the charge sheet was filed beyond the crucial date and the respondent/writ petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and his name ought to have been included in the panel, prepared for the year 2017 and the Writ Court has rightly held in favour of the writ petitioner, which does not call for any interference. 5.Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Appellants and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent/writ petitioner.
6.The point that arises for consideration is, whether the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to be considered for inclusion in the panel drawn for the year 2017 for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and consequently to be promoted to the said post.
7.There is no dispute with regard to the FIR registered in Crime No.3 of 2014 dated 19.06.2014. However, the charge sheet was filed only on 01.11.2017, whereas, the crucial date for preparing the panel for the year 2017 for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is 15.09.2017. Therefore, as on the crucial date, namely 15.09.2017 no charge sheet was filed against the respondent/writ petitioner. 8.In such circumstances, there is no bar for the Appellants to consider the name of the respondent/writ petitioner to include in the panel drawn for the year 2017 for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The writ Court has rightly considered all the contentions put forth by both parties and allowed the writ petition. In view of the same, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
9.When this court dismissed the Writ Appeal, the learned Additional Advocate General sought two months time to comply with the order of the Writ Court. Therefore, two months time is granted to comply with the order of the Writ Court
dated 13.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.5418 of 2021, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sai To R.Radhakrishnan S/o. Ranganathan, Senior Revenue Inspector, Collectorate Office, Villupuram.
R.SURESH KUMAR J.
and N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
sai and CMP No. 9187 of 2026 09-04-2026