The State Of Tamil Nadu v. L. Arul Sundaresh Kumar
2026:MHC:1494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director Of Medical Education And Research Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
3. The Dean Kanyakumari Medical College, Asaripallam, Kanyakumari 629 201.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Dr.L. Arul Sundaresh Kumar Professor of ENT, Government Madurai Medical College, Madurai.
2. Dr.R. Amutha Rani Professor of Anasthesia, Government Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli.
3. Dr.S. Muthuchitra Professor of ENT, Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai.
4. Dr.T. Jeyasingh Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore .
5. Dr.M. Rohinidevi Professor of Anatomy, Government Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore.
6. Dr.J.A. Jayalal Professor and HOD of General Surgery, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Fort. St. George, Chennai 09.
7. Dr.G. Sivasankar Director and Professor of Urology, Madras Medical College, Chennai.
8. Dr.M. Bhavani Medical Superintendent / Professor, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai.
9. Dr.T. Ravikumar Medical Superintendent / Professor, Government Medical College and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Hospital, Coimbatore.
10.Dr.V. Ramalakshmi Professor of Ophthalmology, Government of Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli.
11.Dr.S. Kumaravel Professor or Orthopaedics, Government Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur.
12.Dr.P. Leo David Vice Principal/Professor, Kanyakumari Government Medical College, Asaripallam 13.Dr.J. Devi Meenal Professor of Radio Diagnosis, Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai.
14.Dr.S. Kalaivani Director and Professor of Dermato, Venereo and Leprosy, Madras medical College, Chennai.
15.Dr.V. Lokanayaki Professor of Anatomy, Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai.
..Respondent(s) To review the order passed by this Court dated 04.07.2025 passed in WA.No.924 of 2025 (Common order) as to whether Dr. J. Jayalal, Respondent 1 has to be promoted to the post of Dean for the panel 2024-2025 while a punishment of censure for on year was in force as against the said Dr. J. Jayalal during the preparation of the panel and pass such other or further or orders as this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General asst by Mrs.M.Sneha Special Counsel for Health and Family Welfare Department.
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Godson Swaminath for M/s.Isaac Chambers for R6 R1-5, 7-15-Dispensed with vide order dated 02.03.2026.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) State preferred the present review application to review the order of this Court dated 04.07.2025 passed in W.A.No.924 of 2025.
2. Heard Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and Mr.P.Godson Swaminath, appering on behalf of the 6th respondent. Since both respective learned counsels argued the matter in full, this Court has decided to pass final orders in the present review application.
3. The factual matrix transpired would show that five doctors preferred writ appeals challenging the writ order seeking promotion to the post of 'Dean' of Government Medical College Hospital in the State of Tamil Nadu. Division Bench of this Court elaborately considered the issues and dismissed the writ appeals by confirming the order passed by the Writ Court. Consequently, all five doctors namely Dr.L.ArulSundaresh Kumar, Dr.R.Amutha Rani, Dr.S.Muthuchitra, Dr.T.Jeyasingh and Dr.M.Rohinidevi were promoted to the post of Dean in compliance with the orders of the Division Bench, which is sought to be reviewed in the present petition.
4. Subsequently, Medical department found that Dr.J.A.Jayalal, who is the 1st respondent in the writ petition suffered punishment of censure vide order dated 11.09.2024. Crucial date for promotion to the post of Dean was 15.03.2024. As on the crucial date, currency of punishment was in existence. Therefore, he was found ineligible for promotion to the post of Dean. Admittedly, this fact was not placed before the Division Bench during hearing of writ appeal either by the State counsel or by learned counsel appeared for the Doctors.
5. Raising the said error as a ground, present review application is filed.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General would contend that said error, if allowed to go on, it will affect the scheme of promotions to be granted to the meritorious Doctors to the post of Dean. Post of Dean is the head of institution and any tainted candidate is not eligible for promotion to the post of Dean as per the Promotion Rules in force. Thus, it is an error apparent and to be corrected.
7. Mr.P.Godson Swaminath, learned counsel for the 6th respondent would oppose by stating that punishment of censure was subsequently stayed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10589 of 2026, dated 10.03.2026. Since punishment of censure imposed vide proceedings dated 11.09.2024 has been stayed by the learned Single Judge, there is no impediment for continuance
of the 6th respondent in the post of Dean. However, said promotion already granted may be continued till such time the writ petition is disposed of.
8. The fact remains that 6th respondent was promoted to the post of Dean on 17.02.2026. Therefore, he was not actually promoted during the currency of punishment of censure, which expired on 10.09.2025. Promotion to the post of Dean was granted, as per the learned Additional Advocate General, under the threat of contempt proceedings. He would submit that department has not proposed to give promotion to the 6th respondent to the post of Dean. Since contempt petition was filed, State complied the order subject to filing of the present review application. However, 6th respondent has subsequently filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10589 of 2026 challenging the punishment of censure imposed vide proceedings dated 11.09.2024. This being the factum, subject to the final orders to be passed in the said writ petition in the matter of punishment, promotion of the 6th respondent may be regulated/regularised in accordance with the rules in force.
9. Legal propositions governing the promotion are that, (i) Promotion per se cannot be claimed as an absolute right by an employee. (ii) Consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee. (iii) All promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with the Promotion Rules applicable to a particular post.
10. Currency of punishment, no doubt is a bar for promotion. Since promotion has been granted to the 6th respondent to the post of Dean in pursuance to the contempt proceedings, and he subsequently challenged the punishment of censure by filing a writ petition, his promotion to the post of Dean is directed to be regulated subject to the final order to be passed in the writ petition, which is pending before the learned Single Judge.
11. With these observations, the review application is disposed of. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 07-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND K.SURENDER, J.
GD 07-04-2026