M.Natarajan, (Rtd Dy.Director) v. The Principal Secretary To

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY M.Natarajan ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Prinicipal Secretary to Government, Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director, National Cadet Crops Directorate, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Andaman Nicobar, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.1330/1/SC/5626, dated 1/6

21.07.2016 and to quash the same consequently, to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to revise the seniority and give the notional promotion to the post of Additional Director and give the monetary benefits, equal rank of pension from the date of retirement.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and consequently to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to revise the seniority and give the notional promotion to the post of Additional Director and give the monetary benefits, equal rank of pension from the date of retirement.

2/6

2. The contention of the petitioner is that because of punishment of censure inflicted in the year 2009, the petitioner's name was not included in the promotional panel 2010-2011 in the post of Assistant Director. But censure is not bar for considering the name for the promotion as held in Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs V. Rani reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129 (Rani's case). Moreover, the check period cannot be calculated in the case punishment of censure. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reason cited by the respondents that the petitioner was undergoing censure punishment is erroneous since the reason is against the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench in Rani's case.

3. The next contention of the respondent is that any promotion can be considered only based on merit and ability. Since the petitioner is not a meritorious candidate and hence the claim of the petitioner cannot be 3/6

considered. The respondents had specifically averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is unfit to hold the post of Superintendent itself, further promotive post of Assistant Director cannot be granted. Since the respondents have stated that the petitioner has no merit and has no ability, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion cannot be granted.

4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Index : Yes / No 28.03.2023 Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No Tmg 4/6

To 1.The Prinicipal Secretary to Government, Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director, National Cadet Crops Directorate, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Andaman Nicobar, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg 28.03.2023 6/6