(Prayer: To set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble Court pertaining to WP No. 11498 of 2017 dated 06.06.2024.

To set aside the common orders passed by the Hon’ble Court in WP No.5796 of 2018 dated 06.06.2024 .)

Common Judgment

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. Under assail is the common writ order dated 06.06.2024 passed in WP No.11498 of 2017 W.P.No.5796 of 2018 dated 06.06.2024. Two writ petitions had been instituted, one challenging the order passed by the respondent cancelling the promotion granted to the appellants to the post of Assistant Manager(Hotels), another writ petition filed challenging the consequential notification issued by the respondent in pursuance to the cancellation order.

2. The appellants are working as Accountant in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited, a Government of Tamil Nadu owned Corporation.

3. Based on the training imparted to them, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Manager, vide proceedings dated 29.07.2015. The Government issued a letter to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation on 21.12.2015, stating that the resolution passed granting promotion was not the basis for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Training) and therefore, the resolution is not in accordance with the rules. Thereafter, the Board passed a resolution in 271st meeting held on 23.12.2015 to cancel the promotion granted both the appellant and based on the Board Resolution, the Managing Director, issued proceedings dated 19.08.2016, cancelling the promotion granted to the appellants mainly on the ground that the promotion made to the post of Assistant Manager to the appellants was not in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that as per the Service Regulation, the post of Assistant Manager is to be filled up through direct recruitment and eligibility has been fixed. Admittedly, the post of Accountant is not a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager as per the Service Regulations applicable to the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited employees. However, it is contended that a training was imparted to the appellants working in the cadre of Accountant and they were holding the post of Assistant Manager in charge for a while and subsequently, promoted to the said post. Cancellation made therefore, is improper.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the Board granted in violation of rules. The post of Accountant is not a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. The ratio of 3:1 was not followed. Even in the case of applying the ratio 3:1, the cadre of Accountant cannot be considered, since the feeder category to the post of Assistant Manager is Stewards/ Receptionist with minimum 7 years experience in Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation (Hotels).

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties.

7. The episode of grant of promotion emanated in 267th Board meeting held on 27.02.2014. Board was informed that there are certain staff members completed catering diploma course through correspondence course and made a representation to consider them for appointment as Assistant Manager (Trainee). The Board authorities the Managing Director to examine their representation. Accordingly, a resolution was passed as under:

                     “Resolved to consider appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Trainee) by promotion from lower category taking into account the recommendations of the committee, as per the guidelines indicated below:

                     Appointment of TTDC employees to the post of Assistant Manager (Trainee) by Promotion:

                     Ratio of recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager (Trainee) by direct recruitment and by promotion may be fixed as 3:1.

                     Categories of posts eligible for promotion:

                     Stewards/Receptionists with minimum seven years Experience in TTDC Hotels.

                     5. It is respectfully submitted that clause 82 of the Articles of Association of TTDC provide powers to Government to issue such directions as follows:-

                     “Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these articles the Government may from time to time issue such directives or instructions as they may think, fit in regard to the finances and the conduct of the business and affairs of the company, and the Board shall duly comply with and give effect to such directives or instructions.”

8. The Managing Director, without considering the resolution in a right perspective, in violation of the promotion rules and by not applying the ratio fixed for promotion, granted promotion to the appellants to the post of Assistant Manager. The order was sent for the approval of the Government, The Government in its order dated 21.12.2015 indicated that the appointment made by Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation for the post of Assistant Manager (Trainee) is not in consonance with the 267th Board meeting. Thus, an instruction was given to cancel the appointment made in favour of the appellants in proceedings dated 29.07.2015. In implementation of the Government instructions, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Board in its 271st meeting held on 23.12.2015 and the following resolution was passed:

                     “The board after detailed discussion directed that the ratio of 3:1 for direct recruitment and promotion as per the board Resolution passed in the 267th Board Meeting held on 26.11.2014 should be followed in the appointment of 7 employees of TTDC as Assistant Manager (Trainee). Accordingly, the appointment of 7 TTDC as Assistant Manager (Trainee) made vide Proceeding No.4560/A2/2015 dated 29.07.2015, should be modified by reserving 6 posts of Assistant Managers (Trainee) out of 7 posts, for direct recruitment and the remaining one post to be filled up by promotion of the senior most among the eligible employees.”

9. In implementation of the board resolution, the Managing Director issued proceedings cancelling the promotion granted to the appellants on 19.08.2016.

10. This Court is of the considered view that all promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with the rules applicable . Promotion per se is not a vested right of an employee. However, in the present case, promotion was granted to the appellants. The government found that the promotion made to the post of Assistant Manager (Trainee) is not in consonance with the Service Rules. Consequently, an instruction was issued to cancel the promotion. Accordingly, the Board passed a resolution, cancelling the promotion which was communicated by the Managing Director to the appellants. Admittedly, the post of Accountant is not a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. When the promotion has been erroneously made by the Managing Director by wrongly understanding and interpreting the resolution passed by 267th Board meeting, the Government instructed to cancel the promotion. Thereafter, the Board also found that the promotion granted was not in consonance with the earlier Board Resolution. Correcting the error or mistake committed by the authority or the orders passed in violation of the resolution of the Board, cannot be construed as an illegality deserving any interference by exercising the powers of judicial review by the High Court. In the event of identifying any error or mistake or violation of rules in the matter of grant of promotion, there is no impediment to cancel the same.

11. In the present case, Rules relating to promotion to the post of Assistant Manager was violated. More than that, the resolution passed by the 267th board meeting was also violated. That being the factum, the appellants have not established any right to interfere with the cancellation of promotion and the writ Court also considered the issue in a right perspective. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.