Isabella Mariam

The Madras High Court Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan held that while promotion is not a fundamental right, every employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. The court clarified that in assessing claims of delayed promotion, one cannot expect mathematical precision from a government department in posting employees to positions required for eligibility, and the relevant inquiry is whether there was any motivated or abnormal delay on the department's part. Setting aside the Single Judge's direction for notional promotion of a government employee as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, the court found no such deliberate delay, noting that the employee's own prolonged absence on loss of pay had contributed significantly to the delay in meeting the required eligibility criteria.

The appellants, comprising State authorities in the Rural Development Department, challenged an order of the learned Single Judge directing notional promotion of the respondent employee as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I by including his name in the panel for the year 2000 with service and monetary benefits.

Also Read: National Security Paramount, Border Officers' Infractions Cannot Be Viewed Lightly: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of BSF Officer For Cattle Smuggling Across Indo-Bangladesh Border

The employee was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in Thanjavur District on 21.04.1994 and transferred to Sivagangai District on 14.12.1998. He passed the departmental examination and his probation was declared on 31.05.1999. The State contended that due to long leave on loss of pay, probation was delayed, but upon declaration of probation, he was sent for Bhavanisagar training and later posted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II. It was submitted that promotion was granted on 24.04.2003 after he fulfilled eligibility criteria, including foundational training and one year’s service in the feeder post.

The employee contended that administrative delay in deputing him for training and posting him as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II caused postponement of his eligibility for promotion, and such delay could not be attributed to him.

On eligibility conditions, the Court stated, “For a person to be considered to the post of Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, he should have completed his probation, and he must have a foundational training at Bhavanisagar.” It added, “Apart from the above, it is also essential that he should serve as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II for a period of one year.”

Regarding delay, the Bench observed, “Immediately after completion of probation qua 31.05.1999, the petitioner was sent to Bhavanisagar training on 05.07.2000, in which this Court could not find any abnormal delay so as to find fault with the respondents.”

It recorded, “According to the present facts, he became possessed all the required eligibility criteria only in the month of September 2002.” On leave taken by the employee, the Court noted, “As a matter of fact, between 13.09.1994 to 10.12.1998, the petitioner took leave on loss of pay for more than 524 days.”

Addressing the contention of delay, the Bench observed, “Though such argument appears to be attractive, while looking at the above factual position, this Court could not find any abnormal delay on the part of the respondents.”

The Court further stated, “An employee, who took 524 days leave on loss of pay within a period of four years immediately after joining service, cannot claim any equity so as to find fault with the department, as we could not see any deliberate delay on the part of the department.”

On administrative functioning, the Bench recorded, “In the administration of Government Department, we cannot expect a mathematical precision of posting of the employee in a particular post so as to make him to have a required eligibility criteria, which depends upon the various factor.”

The Court noted: "It is well settled principle of law that the promotion is not a fundamental right, however, consideration for promotion is the fundamental right.” It concluded, “While looking at the factual position, this Court could not find any abnormal delay or deliberate omission.”

Also Read: TN Service Rules Bar Bigamy, Second Wife Cannot Be Included In Pension Payment Order Even After Death Of First Spouse: Madras High Court

The Court held, “In view of the above detailed discussion, we are of the firm view that the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned writ order dated 14.03.2022 made in W.P.No.11568 of 2011. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Dr. S. Surya, Additional Government Pleader
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Raja

Case Title: The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. M. Rajesh Kumar
Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:565
Case Number: WA No. 2616 of 2022
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan