(Prayer :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No. 7624/2024/P6 (Development) dated 26.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to post the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer in any suitable place, by retaining her seniority in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, above her juniors in their entry into service.)

1. The writ petition has been filed calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No. 7624/2024/P6 (Development) dated 26.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to post the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer in any suitable place, by retaining her seniority in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, above her juniors in their entry into service.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had joined service as a Assistant Engineer and now has been promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer at Annavasal Sub Division, Pudukottai District. However, the petitioner was relieved from service by proceedings of the second respondent dated 06.01.2025 and by the same order 56 persons were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer, based on the revised seniority and she was also relieved without any instructions. When on enquiry, it was revealed that the disciplinary proceedings is pending against her.

3. He further submitted that even as per the revised list, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as a Assistant Executive Engineer. The people in seniority list upto Serial No.140 had already been given promotion and the petitioner's seniority number is 173 and in between 140-173 there are about 15 employees, who are not in service currently. He further submitted that seniority panel list for the years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023- 2024 were not published. Based on the vacancies in those years, the petitioner would have been allowed to continue in service as an Assistant Executive Engineer. The panel had been prepared for the years 2021- 2022 and 2022-2023 and the petitioner would have been promoted and the subsequent charge memo, which was given on 27.10.2023 would not have been an embargo against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner had also taken medical leave from 06.01.2023 and she had also filed a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.7983 of 2025, seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to post the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer in any suitable place by retaining her seniority in the said post. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was reported that since the petitioner was on medical leave, no posting could be given to her. Hence, the petitioner had revoked her medical leave and reported to duty. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing, on 28.04.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner had produced the proceedings dated 26.04.2025, reverting the petitioner as Assistant Engineer, which has now been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even as per the revised seniority list, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer for the panel in the years 2021- 2022 or 2022 – 2023. Therefore, he would seek to quash the order impugned herein and direct the respondents to post the petitioner in any suitable place by retaining the seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer. He further submitted that under G.O.D.No.42 the Rural Developmental Panchayat Raj Department dated 24.02.2023

6. Pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition filed by one Balasubramaniyam, the estimated vacancies of Assistant Executive Engineer in the Rural Development and Panchayath Department, to be filled through promotion and recruitment by transfer for the year 2022-2023, have been fixed at 30.

7. Countering his arguments, the learned Government Advocate would submit that after the seniority panel was refixed in pursuant to the directions of the Honourable Apex Court, the petitioner was placed in Serial No.173 and the promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on the revised seniority list were also made. As per the revised seniority list for the panel years from 2004 – 2005 till 2020 to 2021, the last person whose seniority number was included in the panel for the year 2020- 2021 from the re-drawn panel is Serial No.157. Therefore, the petitioner's seniority for further promotion stood at serial No. 23. However, the penal year 2021-2022 was declared as Nil vide G.O( D)No. 42 dated 24.02.2022 and for the panel years 2022 -2023 and 2023-2024 the vacancy position has been declared as Nil.

8. In the interregnum period, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and when the panel for the year 2024-2025 had been drawn, her name was not included in the said panel on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. She would further submit that without challenging the Government Order, which declared the panel for the years 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 as Nil, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that the panel should have been drawn for the year 2021-2022 and other years and that promotion should be granted to her. She would further submit that even if the petitioner's name had been included in the panel, before grant of promotion, if any charge had been issued against her in the interregnum then any event the promotion need not be granted to her. The right for consideration of promotion is only a fundamental right and not a right to be promoted. Even assuming that the panel had been drawn for the year 2021-2022, considering the fact that the petitioner had been slapped a charge memo and the enquiry is still pending before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceeding, which was instituted as early as in the year 2023, she cannot be granted promotion. Hence, she prays to dismissal of the writ petition.

9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of the honourable Division Bench made in W.A(MD).No.1822 of 2023 dated 11.07.2025 to contend that even if the name of the petitioner was included in the panel before granting an order of promotion, if it is that charge memo had been slapped against the petitioner then the actual promotion need not be granted.

10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

11. It is the claim of the petitioner that even as per the revised seniority list, the petitioner would have been promoted in the vacancies that arose for the years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. It is also an admitted case that the said panels have not been released in view of the pending cases filed by other Government employees. It is also not denied that a charge memo had been issued to the petitioner on 27.10.2023. Even if the case of the petitioner is accepted that the petitioner was entitled to be included in the promotion panel for the year 2021-2022 by drawing the panel based on the vacancies that arose in that year, considering the fact that the petitioner had been issued a charge memo under Rule 17(b), she is not entitled to be granted promotion as held in the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench relied upon by the learned Government Advocate. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder

                     “6. The case of the appellant thus falls under the second part of Clause 7 of Schedule XI of the Act. Clause 1 of Schedule XI of the Act reads that if specific charges had been framed, promotion shall be deferred till such proceedings are concluded. Thus, the case of the appellant attracts both Clause 1 as well as Clause 7 of Schedule XI of the Act. These two clauses were not considered by the Coordinate Bench in W.A.(MD)No.527 of 2025. On this ground, we distinguish the said decision. The fact that the appellant was not under a cloud on the crucial date is no longer material. This is because before actual promotion could be granted, charges had been framed against her under Rule 17(b).”

12. Further as per the revised Seniority list, which has been made as per the order of the Honourable Apex Court, the petitioner had suffered an order of reversion as she had not been entitled to consideration till 2021. Such reversion cannot be said to be bad in law, as it becomes eminent.

13. In view of the revision of the seniority for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity or any merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs.