G.M.AKBAR ALIWRIT APPEAL (MD) No.509 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 20111.The Secretary v. V.Rani) has settled the principle that after currency of thepunishment period & Ors.

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED:21.6.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALIWRIT APPEAL (MD) No.509 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 20111.The Secretary, Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and Information Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 600 034. :Appellants-Vs-1.R.Patchaiappan2.C.Kumaradurai3.T.Gajendran4.G.Thennarasu5.R.Jegannathan6.S.Sivaji7.K.P.Ashok Kumar8.T.Varadarajan :RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order ofthis Court dated 11.12.2009 in W.P.(MD)Nos.6675 of 2008 under article 226 ofthe Constitution of India to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus callingfor the records relating to the impugned panel of the first respondentissued in the G.O.(Ms)No.238, Tamil Deelopment, Hindu Religious and Information (Aa.Ni-21) Department dated 24.6.2008 and the consequentialposting order of the first respondent issued in the G.O.No.(Valayam)206,Tamil Development Hindu Religious and Information(Aa.Ni-22) Department dated4.7.2008 and quashing the same in so far as the executive officer Grade I isconcerned, more specifically the respondents 3 to 9 and to direct therespondents 1 and 2 to include the petitioner's name in the said panel atserial No.1 for the post of Assistant Commissioner for the year 2006-2007and to promote the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department with all the consequential benefits witheffect from the date on which the petitioner's junior was promoted as Assistant Commissioner and granting such other and further relief. For appellants :Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Addl. Govt. PleaderFor 1st respondent: Mr.K.VellaiswamyJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.RAJESWARAN, J)This Writ Appeal has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(MD)No.6675 of 2008 challenging the final order passed in the Writ Petitiondated 11.12.2009.2.The case of the appellants is as follows:-Writ Petition (MD)No.6675 of 2008 was filed by the first respondentherein challenging the Executive Officer Grade - I Panel of the firstrespondent issued in G.O.Ms.No.238, Tamil Development Hindu Religious and Information (Aa.Ni.2.1) Department dated 24.6.2008 and the consequentialposting orders of the first respondent quashing the same and directing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2respondents to include the petitioner's name in the said panel as SerialNo.1 for the post of Assistant Commissioner for the year 2006-2007 and topromote him accordingly.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was working as AssistantCommissioner in H.R.&C.E. Department. Previously, he was working as Executive Officer Grade - I, which is a feeder category for promotion to thepost of Assistant Commissioner. A panel of Executive officers Grade - I,for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner for the year 2006-2007was prepared and published in the Government Order i.e. G.O.Ms.No.238,Tamil Development Hindu Religious and Information (Aa.Ni.2.1) Departmentdated 24.6.2008 and promotions were also given accordingly. But, since thepetitioner's name was not included in the panel, he was not promoted. Hence, he challenged the same in the Writ Petition.

It was the specific case of the petitioner that the check period inthe panel year 2006 - 2007 was only on 1.10.2006. Therefore, according tothe petitioner, as on 1.10.2006, since the petitioner was not suffering fromany punishment and the check period was already over by 30.9.2005 itself, the petitioner should have been included in the panel and promoted alongwith his juniors.

The said contention was resisted by the respondent department. However, considering the relevant rules viz., 2A of the Tamil Nadu HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Service Rules, thelearned single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition and directedthe respondents to give effect to the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner with effect from the date on which his immediatejuniors were promoted and to give him all the consequential service benefitsincluding the seniority in the post of Assistant Commissioner.

Aggrieved over the same, the first respondent department in the Writ Petition has filed the present Writ Appeal.

According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the writpetitioner was appointed as Executive Officer Grade I in theH.R.&C.E.Department and he joined duty on 2.5.1999. His name was consideredfor inclusion in the panel of officers fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner in the panel 2006 – 2007. However, he had suffered apunishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effecton 12.2.2002. Since the punishment period was within the period of fiveyears prior to the crucial date i.e. on 1.10.2005, his name was notconsidered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner. When hisname was not included, he made a representation to the department and thesame was rejected. Hence, the Writ Petition was filed by the firstrespondent/writ petitioner to reiterate that the Government servant isentitled to be considered for promotion to the next post after currency ofthe punishment period if he is otherwise eligible. According to the writpetitioner, at the time of preparation of the panel, he was not undergoingany punishment. Therefore, when there was no currency of the punishment, there was no justification on the part of the respondent/appellant to havenot included his name in the panel. According to learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader, the learned single Judge has taken the crucial datewrongly for the preparation of the panel for the year 2006-2007 as 1.10.2006and not as 1.10.2005. Therefore, the order suffers from irregularity whichhas to be interfered with by this Court.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the firstrespondent/writ petitioner, would submit that the punishment suffered by himduring the year 2002 viz., stoppage of increment for one year withoutcumulate effect lasts as currency on 11.2.2003 and it cannot be put against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3the petitioner for the panel of the year 2006-2007. When the punishment hasnot fallen within the check period in the year 2006-2007, there was nojustification on the part of the appellant department for not consideringhis name. Further reference to the period 10.7.2001 also goes beyond theperiod of 5 years prior to 1.10.2006. In fact, the petitioner's name shouldhave been placed above Kumaradurai. Thus, by non-inclusion of thepetitioner's name, the respondent has committed illegality. This aspect wasconsidered by the learned single Judge rightly and the learned single Judgetaking note of the provision of Rule 2A has granted the relief sought for. He also refers for Rule 2(A).For better appreciation, rule 2(A) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments (Administration) Service Rules is extracted below: "The crucial date for possession of the prescribedqualification for appointment to any of the posts in the serviceby promotion or by recruitment by transfer shall be the 1stOctober of each year. "

Therefore, he adds that applying the said provisions, learned Judgehas rightly held that for the year 2006-2007 the crucial date should be only1.10.2006 and not 1.10.2005 as claimed by the appellant department and theorder of the learned single Judge is in order. 10. We have heard the rival submissions carefully. 11. As rightly held by the learned Judge that as on 1.10.2006, therewas no punishment suffered by the petitioner and thus there was no otherlegal impediment for the petitioner to be promoted as Assistant Commissioneralong with his immediate junior. Besides that the Full Bench Judgmentreferred by by the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitionerviz., 2011 (3) CTC 129 (The Deputy Inspector General of Police, ThanjavurRange, Thanjavur, 2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai –4. Vs. V.Rani) has settled the principle that after currency of thepunishment period, the Government Servant is entitled to be considered forpromotion to the next post if otherwise eligible.