N.Nandhini Devi @ Anisha v. The Director Of Sericulture,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.11.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN N.Nandhini Devi @ Anisha ... Petitioner Vs.
The Director of Sericulture, Salem-636 001.
... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Se.Mu.No.614/ Pa.A-2/2025 dated 17.09.2025 and quash the same in so far as it does not include the petitioner's name in the panel of Inspector of Sericulture for the year 2016-2017 and direct the respondent to include the petitioner's name in the said panel at the appropriate place with reference to her seniority and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manoj Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the respondent, thereby including the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion to the post of Inspector of Sericulture for the year 2018-2019 and
rejecting the request made by the petitioner to include her name in the panel for the year 2016-2017.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3.The petitioner is working as Inspector of Sericulture. She was initially appointed as Assistant Inspector of Sericulture by direct recruitment on 30.01.2024. While being so, she was placed under suspension by an order dated 22.09.2016. At that juncture, the petitioner was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector of Sericulture for the year 2016-2017. However, her name was not included in the panel for promotion on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against her. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the crucial date for consideration of inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel for the year 2016-2017 was 15.04.2016. As on the said crucial date, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner and she had not suffered with any punishment. It is further submitted that a show cause notice under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued on 12.09.2016 and subsequently, the petitioner was imposed
with punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect, by order dated 03.11.2016.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that another charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was issued on 02.06.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges framed under Rule 17(b) by the final order dated 21.08.2019. Thereafter, the probation period of the petitioner was declared to have been successfully on 30.12.2020. Since the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Sericulture for the year 2016-2017. Subsequently, she was considered for promotion and placed at serial No.1 and posted as Inspector of Sericulture on 30.04.2018.
6.In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the respondent. Thus, the writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. No costs. 10.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No : Yes / No Lpp
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.
,J.
Lpp To:
The Director of Sericulture, Salem-636 001.
10.11.2025