Courts Can't Direct Promotions Outside Established Rules And Seniority Framework: Madras HC

Background

M. Palanisamy joined as an NMR worker in Town Panchayat service in 1987 and was later regularized as a Motor Pump Operator in 2006. Following his regularization, he was promoted to the position of Sanitary Supervisor in August 2011. However, this promotion was reversed by the Executive Officer of Punjaipugalur Town Panchayat. Challenging this reversion, Palanisamy filed W.P.(MD)No.4507 of 2014. Notably, another writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.10845 of 2011) had been filed by M. Meena questioning Palanisamy's original promotion to Sanitary Supervisor. The Single Judge, through a common order dated 12.03.2015, dismissed Palanisamy's petition, leading to the present writ appeal.

Arguments

The appellant's primary contention, presented through his counsel, was founded on a fundamental principle of service jurisprudence - that every government servant should have an avenue for promotion to prevent career stagnation. He argued that his promotion to Sanitary Supervisor was legitimate and the subsequent reversion was improper.

The Additional Advocate General, representing the official respondents, countered this by referring to the specific provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment Rules. He emphasized that only Public Health Workers, Sanitary Workers, and Scavengers were designated as feeder posts for promotion to Sanitary Maistry. He further clarified that while the appellant could be promoted to the position of Junior Assistant, this would need to follow proper seniority considerations and vacancy availability.

The Court's Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal. Firstly, examining the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment (Qualification and Recruitment of Office Assistants) Rules, 1988, the court found that Sanitary Maistry positions were specifically categorized under Category I of Class II, with feeder posts exclusively from Category II of Class II (Public Health Workers, Sanitary Workers, or Scavengers). Since the appellant's position as Water Pump Operator was not among these designated feeder posts, his initial promotion had been irregular, and the subsequent reversion was legally sound. Secondly, while the court was sympathetic to the appellant's career progression concerns, it emphasized in paragraph 17 that they “have to consider those who are similarly awaiting promotion and who are working in the actual feeder post and who are alone eligible for promotion.” The court clarified that the appropriate promotion avenue for the appellant was to the position of Junior Assistant, but this could not be granted by overlooking senior candidates' rights.

Thirdly, as detailed in paragraph 18, the court took note of the seniority list presented by the Additional Advocate General, which revealed three individuals senior to the appellant working in the same position and eligible for promotion to Junior Assistant. The court observed that while the appellant's promotion rights would be considered when vacancies arose, “the Court cannot step into the shoes of the Executive and issue a direction for promotion of the appellant overriding other similarly placed individuals.” Lastly, addressing previous judicial precedent, the court examined a prior order in W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2008. While this earlier order had granted the appellant liberty to make a representation for promotion, the court clarified that this did not create any special right for promotion outside the established rules and seniority considerations. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal.

Date: 24.10.2024

Citation: 2024:MHC:3620

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. A. Maheswaran for Mr. R. Kathiresa Perumal

Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. M. Senthil Ayyanar

Counsel for Respondent 4: Mr. AN. Ramanathan