Employees Need To Fulfil Required Years Of Service and Practical Experience as per Rules for Promotion : Madras High Court

Background Facts

G. Ravichandran (Petitioner), was initially appointed as a Record Clerk (Company Trainee) in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Respondent) in 1988. Over the years, he was promoted through various positions, ultimately reaching the post of Senior Superintendent. During his tenure, petitioner acquired a degree in law and claimed to be qualified for the position of Assistant Manager (Legal) within the corporation. Despite possessing the requisite qualifications, petitioner was not promoted, however his juniors got promoted who did not meet the educational requirements outlined in the Common Service Rules.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed two writ petitions.

The petitioner contended that he acquired a degree in law during his tenure with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TSTC). He argued that he possessed the necessary educational qualifications to be promoted to the position of Assistant Manager (Legal) within the corporation. Petitioner alleged that despite meeting the prescribed educational qualifications, he was passed over for promotion in favor of his juniors who did not possess the requisite degree in law.

The Petitioner further contended that the TSTC failed to consider his eligibility and unjustly ignored his rightful claim to the promotion, which was in accordance with the Common Service Rules applicable to the organization.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that despite petitioner possessing a degree in law, he lacked the necessary practical experience in civil or mofsel courts as an advocate, which was a requirement for the Assistant Manager (Legal) position within the corporation. They contended that petitioner was appointed as a Senior Superintendent as a fresh entrant on May 30, 2015, therefore, he had not completed the required five years of service in this position, as mandated by the Rule 60(d)(i) of the Common Service Rules, to be eligible for promotion to Assistant Manager (Legal).

Findings of the Court

The court observed that petitioner was appointed as a Senior Superintendent as a fresh entrant on May 30, 2015, as a result, he had not completed the required five years of service in this position, as mandated by Rule 60(d)(i) of the Common Service Rules, to be eligible for promotion to Assistant Manager (Legal). The court observed that petitioner lacked the necessary practical experience in civil or mofsel courts as an advocate, which was a requirement for the Assistant Manager (Legal) position.

The court found that the seniority list prepared by the corporation was in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The court further observed that the promotions within the TSTC were based on merit and eligibility criteria, including the completion of the requisite years of service and possession of necessary qualifications in compliance with the Common Service Rules.

The court held that there was no merit in the petitioner's claims.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petitions were dismissed.

Case No. : W.P.Nos.19396 and 9218 of 2018

Case Name: G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 194

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. L. Chandrakumar for Mr. E. Mohamed Abbas

Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. E. Ranganayaki, Additional Government Pleader; Mr. R. Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. Babu, Standing Counsel for TNSTC