logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7314 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP. No. 12024 of 2020 & W.M.P. No. 14763 of 2020
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Parties : K. Senthil Kumar Versus The Director General, Highways Department, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: A. Sakthi Murugan, Advocate. For the Respondents: C.P. Goutham, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 08-10-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Writ or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Ka.No.75/ 2017/ A2 dated 26.04.2017 and the consequent panel in Ku.No.75/ 2017/ A2 dated 14.07.2020 on the file of 3rd respondent and quash the same and further directing the 3rd respondent to place the petitioner above the 4th respondent in the panel for promotion as Road Inspector Grade II.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the third respondent in drawing up panel for promotion to the post of Road Inspector Grade - II vide proceedings dated 14.07.2020 on the basis of the proceedings in Ka.No.75/2017/A2 dated 26.04.2017 and placing the fourth respondent above the petitioner in seniority, as being illegal and arbitrary.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the fourth respondent is Junior to the petitioner in service at the time of his initial appointment on 28.10.1997 as a temporary Gang Mazdoor; and that, the third respondent while preparing the panel for promotion to the post of Road Inspector Grade II vide proceeding dated 14.07.2020 could not have placed the fourth respondent above the petitioner by placing reliance on the seniority proceeding dated 26.04.2017.

4. It is further contended that in the seniority list prepared by the third respondent on 26.04.2017 on merger of existing five divisions into two divisions, the third respondent not only placed the petitioner below the fourth respondent in seniority and but also placed the petitioner below the fourth respondent in panel for promotion.

5. It is contended that it is not only in the case of petitioner, such an action or anomaly had also occurred for other similarly placed employees; that the aforesaid action of the third respondent was subject matter challenge before this Court in W.P.No.22556 of 2017 and this Court by order dated 19.01.2026 had allowed the said Writ Petition by setting aside the order impugned therein and directed the respondents to revise the seniority list of Road Gangmazdoors drawn on 01.04.2017 by reckoning the date of appointment of the employees as Road Gangmazdoors in all five sub-divisions of the Dharapuram Division, strictly in accordance with Rule 35 (a) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules; that since, the impugned proceeding is based on the revised seniority list of Road Gangmazdoors drawn on 26.04.2017, the respondents are required to fix the seniority of the petitioner based on the date of appointment as Road Gangmazdoors and not at any other date as held by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that the third respondent had issued seniority list on merger of the five divisions into two divisions and the petitioner at that point of time did not challenge his seniority fixed therein. Learned Government Advocate further submits that since, the panel for promotion is based on the said seniority, the petitioner cannot claim that 4th respondent to be his junior. Contending as above, learned Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

8. At the outset, it is to be noted that though the petitioner on the third respondent preparing and issuing the revised seniority list on merger of existing five divisions into two divisions, did not challenge the same for being placed below the fourth respondent in seniority list, since, the said seniority list prepared by the third respondent itself being a subject matter of consideration before this Court in W.P.No.22556 of 2017 and this Court by order dated 19.01.2026 having set aside the said seniority list, this Court is of the view that the respondents cannot be allowed to proceed further with the panel dated 14.07.2020 which was drawn up on the basis of seniority which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.22556 of 2017.

9. Further, the seniority list prepared by the third respondent on merger of five divisions into two divisions having been found by this Court to be contrary to Rule 35 (a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules, and this Court having set-aside the same, the third respondent cannot proceed or take further action on the basis of the said panel.

10. In view of the above, since the seniority list which was drawn up by the respondents on merger of its unit having been set aside by this Court, the consequent preparation of panel for promotion which was drawn up by the third respondent by the impugned proceeding on the basis of the seniority list also cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned proceeding is set aside. The respondents are directed to prepare the panel on the basis of revised seniority panel drawn up pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.01.2026 in W.P.No.25566 of 2026. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal