Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs T. Anandan
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah, Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
W.A No.480 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 22-03-2021
Judgment Delivered on : 27-04-2021
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
---
Writ Appeal No. 480 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.4223 of 2019
---
1. The Commissioner
Directorate of Technical Education
Guindy, Chennai - 600 025
2. The Central Polytechnic
represented by its Principal
Tharamani, Chennai - 600 113 .. Appellants
Versus
T. Anandan
Skilled Assistant
Mechanical Department
Central Polytechnic
Taramani, Chennai - 600 113 .. Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order
dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.5290 of
2013 on the file of this Court.
Page No.1/24
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A No.480 of 2019
For Appellants : Mr.E.Manohar,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : M/s.V.Ashok Kumar and Mr.Su.Srinivasan
JUDGMENT
R.SUBBIAH, J This intra-court appeal is filed against the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.5290 of 2013, thereby allowing the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein.
2. The said Writ Petition No.5290 of 2013 was filed by the respondent herein to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the first appellant, quash the same and consequently direct the appellants to give notional promotion to the respondent as Workshop Instructor from 18.08.2010, when his juniors were given such promotion on 18.08.2010 with all attendant benefits including monetary and service benefits as applicable for Workshop Instructor and Instructor and to pay him back-wages as Workshop Instructor from 18.08.2010.
3. The facts, based on which the writ petition was filed by the Page No.2/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 respondent before the learned Single Judge, are required to be examined for disposal of this appeal.
4. The respondent herein/writ petitioner was a holder of Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering (DECE). The father of the respondent was employed as Skilled Assistant in the second appellant- Polytechnic. During the course of such service, he died on 16.12.1993 and therefore, the respondent herein was appointed as Skilled Assistant on 28.02.1996 on compassionate grounds. On 28.02.1998, the service of the respondent was also regularised. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, between 28.02.1996 and 30.01.2003, he was directed to work in the Workshop Foundry, and accordingly he worked in the Workshop Foundry. Subsequently, he was directed to work in Electronics Lab from 01.02.2003 to 02.06.2010, which duty he discharged without any complaint. In the meanwhile, with the permission of his employer, the respondent/writ petitioner pursued Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech) in Information Technology through College of Engineering, Anna University, Guindy. The respondent/writ petitioner also passed the said course during May 2004.
5. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, he was due for Page No.3/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor on 28.02.2003 on completion of seven years in the cadre of Skilled Assistant as per G.O.Ms.No.2100, Education Department, dated 18.09.1981. It is the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that, some of the persons, who were appointed along with him, were given promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor, but the respondent/writ petitioner continued as Skilled Assistant without any promotion. In the meantime, G.O.Ms.No.421, Higher Education Department, dated 08.07.2004 was issued, in which, amendments were brought in the relevant Rules to substitute the expression "recognised Mechanical/Electrical Workshop" in the place of "recognised workshop" in Class II in the entries in items 2 (ii), 3 (ii) and 4 (ii) in column 4 against the category "9. Workshop Instructor". Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education (B1) Department, dated 06.07.2009 by which, new Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service, were framed, by superseding the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service. As per the amendments, the eligibility criteria for the post of Workshop Instructor, had been modified, with a Diploma in Mechanical or Electrical and Electronics Engineering or Page No.4/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 Electrical Engineering or the candidates should be in possession of I.T.I./N.T.C./N.A.T.C. Certificate in Mechanical/ Electrical subjects, with practical experience of not less than three years in a recognised Mechanical/Electrical workshop not below the rank of Skilled Operative/Assistant. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, for reasons unknown to him, the Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering had not been included as one of the subjects for promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor. By reason of non-inclusion of the Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering, those who were appointed as Skilled Assistant in Electronics Laboratory, could not get the prospects of promotion until their retirement. Equally, the respondent/writ petitioner also could not be promoted by reason of the amendments. Before amendment, the qualification of VIII Standard with seven years experience in the workshop with a Diploma in Electronics and Communication, was prescribed as eligibility criteria. However, by virtue of the amendment, his prospects of getting promotion to the next avenue as Workshop Instructor, had been taken away, inasmuch as the respondent/writ petitioner did not possess a Diploma in the prescribed branch. The respondent/writ petitioner Page No.5/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 therefore, submitted a representation dated 17.05.2010, which was rejected by the first appellant on 29.04.2011 stating that the respondent/writ petitioner, as per the new Rule, did not fulfil the criteria for promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor. Assailing the order of rejection dated 29.04.2011, the respondent had approached this Court with the instant Writ Petition No. 5290 of 2013.
6. The appellants have filed a counter affidavit in the Writ Petition and opposed the claim of the respondent for promotion. According to the first appellant, as per the then existing Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service, for promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor, a person should have passed VIII Standard in a recognised school with practical experience of not less than three years in a recognised mechanical/electrical workshop not below the rank of Skilled Operative/Assistant. As per the revised Special Rules which came into force on 06.07.2009, the respondent is not eligible for promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor, since he is not having the required experience in a recognised Mechanical/Electrical workshop. The Government is frequently upgrading the eligibility criteria of faculties and staff in educational field in Page No.6/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 order to improve the quality of education rendered to the young generations. While so, in the absence of possession of requisite qualification and experience, the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for promotion cannot be countenanced. The appellants therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. The learned Single Judge, on a perusal of the new Rules, issued in G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education Department, dated 06.07.2009, concluded that the new Rules cannot be applied retrospectively to deny promotion to the respondent/writ petitioner. Even as on 28.02.2003, the respondent had completed seven years of experience in the post of Skilled Assistant and therefore, denying him promotion even in the subsequent panel drawn in the year 2009, is unjust. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on an order dated 30.03.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No. 14252 of 2010 and concluded that the Ad-hoc Rules issued on 06.07.2009, are applicable to future vacancies that arose after 06.07.2009 and it cannot be put against the respondent herein to deny him promotion. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner and directed the appellants to give Page No.7/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 notional promotion to the respondent/writ petitioner as Workshop Instructor from the date on which his juniors were given such promotion on 18.08.2010 with revision of pay and all attendant benefits.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Skilled Assistant in the Central Poly-technic, Chennai on 28.02.1996 on compassionate grounds. He had possessed Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering (i.e. DECE). His service was regularised on 28.02.1998 on completion of two years of service. He was directed to work in the Workshop Foundry between 28.02.1996 and 30.01.2003. He was also asked to work in the Electronics Laboratory from 01.02.2003 to 02.06.2010. Since he had acquired seven years experience as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.2100, Education Department, dated 18.09.1981, he ought to have been promoted as Workshop Instructor on 28.02.2003, by which time he was eligible to be promoted to the next higher grade. But his name was not included in the panel drawn between 01.09.2003 and 01.09.2008 due to his lower order of seniority among the post of Skilled Assistant. The last person who was promoted as Workshop Instructor in the light of the then Page No.8/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 existing old Special Rules before 06.07.2009, was senior to the respondent/writ petitioner in the post of Skilled Assistant, as that person had joined in the post of Skilled Assistant on 02.11.1992, who was much senior than the respondent/writ petitioner. In the meanwhile, revised Special Rules in the Tamil Nadu Technical Education Subordinate Service, were issued by G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education Department, dated 06.07.2009, which came into force with effect from 06.07.2009 for promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor. As per the said revised Rules, the respondent/writ petitioner is not in possession of Diploma in Mechanical or Electrical and Electronics Engineering or Electrical Engineering. The respondent/writ petitioner is only a holder of Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering (DECE), which is not the prescribed qualification as per the said revised Rules. Therefore, when the respondent/writ petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification as per the revised Rules even in the subsequent panel, his name was not included in the promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor. Consequently, those who possess the requisite qualification and given promotion, cannot be construed as junior to the respondent/writ petitioner. In any event, as per the revised Special Rules Page No.9/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education Department dated 06.07.2009, which came into force from 06.07.2009, the respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled for promotion. But the learned Single Judge, by misconstruing the effect of G.O.Ms.No.220, Education Department, dated 06.07.2009, allowed the instant Writ Petition No.5290 of 2013 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner and it calls for interference by this Court.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent/writ petitioner is working in the Department from 28.02.1996. When the respondent's turn for promotion came up for consideration, the appellants, by citing the revised Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education Department dated 06.07.2009, which came into force from 06.07.2009, concluded that the respondent/writ petitioner did not possess the prescribed educational as well as service qualification. The learned Single Judge, on going through G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education Department dated 06.07.2009, came to the conclusion that the Government Order cannot be applied with retrospective effect to Page No.10/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 deny promotion to the respondent/writ petitioner and directed the appellants to confer promotion with all consequential service and monetary benefits. Such a conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court and he prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Appeal.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
11. It is not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner joined as Skilled Assistant on 28.02.1996 and his service was regularised on 28.02.1998. The respondent, at the time of his appointment, was a holder of Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering. At the time of appointment of the respondent, as per the then Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Technical Education Subordinate Service, a Skilled Assistant with 7 years experience in any recognised workshop, of which two years workshop experience is in a technical institution, are eligible for promotion as Workshop Instructors. When the respondent/writ petitioner was working as Skilled Assistant, promotions were made to the post of Workshop Instructor, but the respondent was not given such promotion due to his lower order of Page No.11/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 seniority among the post of Skilled Assistant. The respondent/writ petitioner joined service on 28.02.1996, whereas the last person who was promoted as Workshop Instructor in the light of the then existing old Special Rules before 06.07.2009, was senior to the respondent/writ petitioner in the post of Skilled Assistant, as that person joined in the post of Skilled Assistant on 02.11.1992 itself. When the respondent/writ petitioner's name was about to reach to be included in the panel for the promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor, the revised Special Rules under the Tamil Nadu Technical Education Subordinate Service, were brought in force as per G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education Department, dated 06.07.2009. As per this revised Special Rules, the possession of qualification for promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor was modified as "Diploma in Mechanical or Electrical or Electronics Engineering or Electrical Engineering", whereas the respondent/writ petitioner herein possessed only a Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering. Since he did not possess the Diploma in Mechanical or Electrical or Electronics Engineering or Electrical Engineering, his name was not included in the subsequent panel.
12. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Page No.12/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 respondent/writ petitioner that, when the earlier panel was drawn, the promotion was given based on the then existing Rules and those employees having been promoted, the same yardstick has to be applied to the respondent/writ petitioner in the year 2009 panel. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge had correctly allowed the instant Writ Petition by coming to the conclusion that the relevant Government Order cannot be applied with retrospective effect, thereby denying promotion to the respondent/writ petitioner. In fact, the learned Single Judge observed as follows in the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 in W.P.No.5290 of 2013:
"21. In an identical situation, when the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.14252 of 2010 was denied promotion, he moved the High Court seeking to promote him as Workshop Instructor in Government Polytechnic, Thoothukudi. By an order dated 30.03.2012, this Court held as under:
"13. Thus, the reason stated in the impugned order for not considering petitioner's name for promotion as Workshop Instructor is contrary to the well settled principle of law. The Adhoc rules issued on 6.7.2009 is applicable to future vacancies after the issuance of the said Adhoc rules. Nowhere in the said rules it is stated that the said rules are applicable with retrospective effect. In the said rules it Page No.13/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 is specifically stated that the said rules shall come into force on 6th July, 2009.
14. The petitioner has made out a case for considering his name for inclusion in the panel for promotion for the post of Workshop Instructor in the second respondent Polytechnic. Petitioner having retired on 30.9.2011, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to give notional promotion to the petitioner from the date on which his junior was given promotion i.e. with effect from 1.12.2010 and promote him notionally enabling him to get revision of pension. Since the petitioner has not served in the promotional post, he is not entitled to get difference in salary from the date of notional promotion till his retirement, i.e., from 1.12.2010 to 30.9.2011."
22. The above said decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents refuting the applicability of the said decision. It is also not stated as to whether any appeal has been filed against the above said decision. In such circumstances, it can only be inferred that the above said decision has attained finality.
23. Applying the decision in W.P.(MD).No.14252 of 2010, dated 30.03.2012, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned Memo dated 29.04.2011 issued by the first respondent is liable to set aside.
24. In the result:
(a) this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in Memo No.O.Mu.5888/B6/2010 Page No.14/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 dated 29.04.2011, on the file of the 1st respondent, is set aside;
(b) the respondents are directed to give notional promotion to the petitioner as Workshop Instructor from the date on which his juniors were given promotion i.e., on 18.08.2010, and promote him notionally enabling him to get revision of pay and all attendant benefits;
(c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(d) it is made clear that these observations are made on the facts and circumstances of the present case and are not to be treated as a precedent. No costs."
13. We are of the opinion that the revised Special Rules for the post of Workshop Instructor operates only prospectively. In the instant case, the panel was drawn and the revised Special Rules had been framed for the post of Workshop Instructor, prescribing qualification for the Workshop Instructor and the said revised Special Rules were brought in by way of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.220, Higher Education Department, dated 06.07.2009. Thereafter, only on 08.03.2010, by way of Letter No.7636/B6/2010, the proposal was made for the existing vacancies as on Page No.15/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 01.09.2009 from all Government Poly-technic and Special Institutions Thus, it is to be noted that the revised Special Rules were applied by the Department only from the panel drawn on 01.09.2009. Therefore, absolutely, the question of applying the said G.O.Ms.No.220 retrospectively does not arise in this case.
14. In the above context, it is appropriate to rely upon the judgments quoted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants:
(i) 2007 (10) SCC 513 (S.B.Bhattachargee Vs. S.D.Majmudar):
"13. Although a person has no fundamental right of promotion in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, he has a fundamental right to be considered therefor. An effective and meaningful consideration is postulated thereby. The terms and conditions of service of an employee including his right to be considered for promotion indisputably are governed by the Rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India."
(ii) 2017 (5) SCC 783 (Palure Bhaskar Rao Vs. R.Ramesashaiah):
"17. Merely because a person is senior, if the senior is not otherwise eligible for consideration as per the rules for promotion, the senior will have to give way to the eligible juniors. The instant case is a classic example for the said principle ... ..
18. The view taken by us as above is fortified Page No.16/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 by the decision of this Court in the case of R.Prabha Devi and others Vs. Union of India (1988 (2) SCC 233 : 1988 SCC (L & S) 475) wherein it has been held that (SCC pp.241-42, para 15):
"15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority. The amended rule in question has specified a period of eight years' approved service in the grade of Section Officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post of CSS. This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section Officers as well as the promotee Section Officers. The submission that a senior Section Officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being considered for promotion to the higher post, Grade I, is wholly unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority.
This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When Page No.17/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion.
Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly held by the Tribunal:
'When certain length of service in a particular cadre can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligible for appointment. There is no law which lays down that a senior in service would automatically be eligible for promotion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh experience.' "
The aforesaid view of this Court in R.Prabha Devi (R.Prabha Devi Vs. Union of India - 1988 (2) SCC 233 : 1988 SCC (L & S) 475) has been reiterated Page No.18/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 and followed in State of Punjab VS. Inder Singh (1997 (8) SCC 372 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 34) and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa (2010 (12) SCC 471 : 2011 (1) SCC (L & S) 229".
(iii) 1988 (2) SCC 233 (R.Prabha Devi Vs. Government of India:
"15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority. The amended rule in question has specified a period of eight years' approved service in the grade of Section Officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post of CSS. This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section Officers as well as the promotee Section Officers. The submission that a senior Section Officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being considered for promotion to the higher post, Grade I, is wholly unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not Page No.19/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly held by the Tribunal:
"When certain length of service in a particular cadre can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligible for appointment. There is no law which lays down that a senior in service would automatically be eligible for promotion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh experience."
(iv) 2009 (9) SCC 454 (Anil Chandra Vs. Radha Krishna):
"19. The Rules pertaining to the reservation and promotion list are prospective in nature and thereby cannot disturb the promotion list of the appellants by virtue of this Rule. Further, if a rule/notification/circular claims to be retrospective in nature, has to expressly specify, as per the rules of interpretation of statutes in the instant petition, the appellants have failed to establish the nature with regard to retrospective effect of the notification/rules."Page No.20/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019
(v) 1990 (1) SCC 411 (P.Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka) :
"5. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. .. . ..."
(vi) 2008 (3)SCC 512 : K.Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh:
"27. .... Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them - P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India (1984 (2) SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L & S) 214), Umesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India (1985 (3) SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L& S) 919) and Durgacharam Misra Vs. State of Orissa (1987 (4) SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L & S)
36)."
(vii) 2019 (4) SCC 316 (Rajasthan State Sports Council and Page No.21/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 another Vs. Uma Dadhich and another):
"5. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondent had no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the case for promotion was taken up. This principle has been reiterated in several decisions of this Court. (See H.S.Grewal Vs. Union of India - 1997 (11) SCC 758 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 420, Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. - 2011 (6) SCC 725 :
2011 (2) SCC (L & S) 175, State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty - 2017 (3) SCC 646 : 2017 (1) SCC (L & S) 718 and Union of India Vs. Krishna Kumar - 2019 (4) SCC 319)."
15. Moreover, the revised Special Rules have not been challenged, so also, the said G.O.Ms.No.220.
16. Thus, we are not in agreement with the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge that by applying the revised Special Rules, the respondent/writ petitioner was denied promotion. In fact, prior to 2009, the respondent/writ petitioner's name had not reached for consideration of his promotion, due to the lower order of seniority.
17. Hence, following the above decisions of the Supreme Court and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Page No.22/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.
(R.P.S.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,) 27-04-2021 rsh/cs Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes To
1. The Commissioner Directorate of Technical Education Guindy, Chennai - 600 025
2. The Central Polytechnic represented by its Principal Tharamani, Chennai - 600 113 Page No.23/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A No.480 of 2019 R. Subbiah, J and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J cs Pre-delivery Judgment in W.A.No.480 of 2019 Judgment delivered on 27-04-2021 Page No.24/24 http://www.judis.nic.in