AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. By consent,
the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the year 1983 and he was granted selection grade in the post of Assistant
Surgeon in the year 1993 and was made Senior Assistant Surgeon in the year 1999 and Civil Surgeon in the year 1999. It is the case of the
petitioner that in the period between 1993 to 1999, he was working as Senior Assistant Surgeon and the next promotion being Civil Surgeon.
During that time, there was a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules in respect of the
medical negligence, in which the 3rd respondent was also involved. In the said disciplinary proceedings, while the petitioner was imposed with the
punishment of withholding increment for one year without cumulative effect and the 3rd respondent was imposed with the punishment of
withholding increment for three years with cumulative effect. At that point of time the 3rd respondent was holding the post of Senior Assistant
Surgeon, while the petitioner was holding the post of Civil Surgeon. Consequent to the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner, the
petitioner was reverted to the original post of Senior Assistant Surgeon, which he was holding in the year 1999. Whereas the 3rd respondent, who
was imposed with the punishment of withholding increment for three years with cumulative effect and who was holding the post of Civil Surgeon,
consequent upon the disciplinary proceedings was given promotion as Senior Civil Surgeon.
When the petitioner made a claim for the promotion to the next post of Senior Civil Surgeon ahead of the 3rd respondent, the impugned order
came to be passed in the year 2007-2008. Under the impugned order, the Government has informed the petitioner that for the promotion of
Senior Civil Surgeon Post, the names of the Civil Surgeons who were empaneled for the post of Civil Surgeon in the year 2000-2001 alone are
being considered. In as much as the petitioner is concerned, he is in the panel for the year 2004-2005 and his name will be considered for Senior
Civil Surgeon, when he reaches the zone of consideration. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that when the 3rd respondent,
who was involved in the same disciplinary proceedings and was imposed severe punishment has not been disturbed from the post of Civil Surgeon,
while the petitioner holding the post of Civil Surgeon has been reverted to the post of Senior Assistant Surgeon for having imposed with a minor
punishment compared to the 3rd respondent.
Now, based on the counselling notice issued on 20.04.2010, the petitioner has participated for consideration to the post of Chief Civil Surgeon
with effect from 01.01.2005. However, it is the case of the 3rd respondent as submitted by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent that the
3rd respondent has been promoted as Civil Surgeon in the year 2003 itself and his position for the next promotion should not be affected even
though he will not be entitled to the promotion ahead of the petitioner. He would further submit that the 3rd respondent has not received any call
letter for the post of Chief Civil Surgeon conducted in the month of April 2010, for which the petitioner has received the notice.
In such view of the matter, when it is admitted that the petitioner has received counselling letter and was considered for the post of Chief Civil
Surgeon, recording the statement, no further order is necessary. As far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, it is for the second respondent to
consider the case of the 3rd respondent to retain his status, which he has acquired for the promotion of Civil Surgeon also conferring subsequent
promotion as Senior Civil Surgeon. However, making it clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for consideration to the post from 01.01.2005
ahead of the 3rd respondent and such order shall be passed by the second respondent if there are no other legal impediments within a period of 4
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. By granting such relief to the petitioner, it is made clear the second respondent shall not
disturb the status of the 3rd respondent, which has been acquired by him in the above said process.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2009 is closed.