S. Angamuthu vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police Salem Range and The Superintendent of Police

Chitra Venkataraman, J.—Mr. R. Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the

Writ Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. The present Writ Appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner against the order of the learned Single

Judge, wherein, while dismissing the prayer of the writ petitioner for a writ of Mandamus to grant temporary promotion to him under Rule 39(d) of

the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter called as the ""Rules""), learned Single Judge referring to The Deputy Inspector

General of Police and The Director General of Police Vs. V. Rani, held that Rule 39(d) of the Rules is only an enabling provision to give temporary

promotion to meet the emergency situation to fill up the promotion vacancy on peculiar circumstances and the said power will not confer any right

to the petitioner to demand temporary promotion.

The grievance of the Writ Appellant is that having said so, the learned Single Judge pointed out that the petitioner has no manner of right to

demand temporary promotion, particularly when he is facing disciplinary proceedings for the receipt of bribe and if the petitioner is discharged in

the said case, he can very well seek notional promotion, even if he retires.

Learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner/Writ Appellant submits that considering the observation of the Full Bench of this Court in the

decision reported in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and The Director General of Police Vs. V. Rani, ) that even the temporary promotion

could be effected under Rule 39(d) as a matter of discretion, the observation by the learned Single Judge would seriously affect the petitioner''s

chances for having considered for temporary promotion.

As already pointed out, the learned Single Judge himself had observed that granting temporary promotion under Rule 39(d) of the Rules is only

an enabling provision to meet the emergency situation and further observed that if the petitioner is discharged in the cases relating to bribe, he can

very seek notional promotion, even if he retires. In any event, in the absence of any representation made by the petitioner before the competent

respondent seeking such temporary promotion, no such relief could be considered. Hence, it is open to the Writ Appellant to make such

representation to the competent respondent, as he deems fit, for considering his name for temporary promotion. On receipt of such representation,

it is open to the respondents to consider such request in terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of The Deputy Inspector General

of Police and The Director General of Police Vs. V. Rani, With the above observation, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.