AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service. He passed the Departmental Test on 10.05.1981. He was promoted as Assistant on 05.10.1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Class IV on 13.12.1999.
His grievance is that had he been promoted as Assistant in 1981, instead of his junior Mr. M. Divagarapandian, he should have been promoted as Class IV in 1995 and Class II in 1999. Hence, he sent a representation, seeking promotion as Assistant in 1981 and accordingly to give further promotion. The same was rejected by the impugned order, dated 25.04.2005. This writ petition is to quash the aforesaid order dated 25.04.2005.
The first Respondent has filed a counter-affidavit refuting the allegations filed in support of the writ petition.
In the counter, it is stated that the crucial date for including a person in the panel of junior Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Assistant is March 15th of every year. When the panel was prepared as on 15.03.1981, the Petitioner did not pass the test and he did not come under the zone of consideration. Hence his name was not included in the panel. Since his junior Mr. M. Divagarapandian passed the test in 1974, his name was included in the panel and he was promoted as Assistant. The Petitioner was not included in 1981 panel, since he did not pass the test on the crucial date.
I have considered the submissions made on either side.
It is not disputed that the Petitioner passed the Departmental test only in May 1981. He got qualified only in May 1981, while the crucial date for preparation of panel is 15.03.1981. As on 15.03.1981, his junior Mr. M. Divagarapandian passed the test and qualified for inclusion in the panel. Since the Petitioner was not qualified to get included in the list, he could have no grievance.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought to argue that he passed the test before the actual promotion was effected. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Actually, the crucial date for inclusion in the panel is 15.03.1981. As on 15.03.1981, he did not qualify for inclusion of his name in the panel. Unless he is included in the panel, he could not get the promotion. If he passed the test before 15.03.1981, he is entitled to be included in the panel as on 15.03.1981. Had the Department not included the Petitioner on the ground that he passed the test subsequent to his junior Mr. M. Divagarapandian, but before 15.03.1981, then, I could appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is not so. He did not pass the test before the crucial date. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his junior could not have been included in the panel and he should have been included in the panel. But his junior was not shown as a party. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.