Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, N.V. Krishnaveni, was appointed as a Typist in the Agriculture Department in 2007 under the Scheduled Tribe category. She subsequently participated in TNPSC recruitment and was selected for the same post vide order dated 17.07.2009. However, her community certificate was referred for verification by the High Level Committee, causing a delay in her appointment until January 2012. The petitioner sought promotion to Senior Typist, but her request was rejected by the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 on the ground that she had not completed two years of probation within a continuous period of three years. The court considered the arguments that the petitioner was already working as a Typist since 2007 and the delay in appointment was not her fault. The court held that the petitioner's seniority should be restored as per the selection list dated 17.07.2009, above Thiru D. Venkatesan (Seniority No.151), and directed the respondents to consider her name for the panel for Senior Typist for the year 2012-13 with all monetary benefits. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Promotion - Delay in Appointment - The petitioner was appointed as Typist in 2007 and later selected through TNPSC in 2009, but appointment was delayed due to community certificate verification - The court held that the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner and her seniority should be reckoned from the date of selection list - The impugned order rejecting promotion was set aside (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in appointment due to community certificate verification can affect the seniority and promotion of an employee who was already working in the same post.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.05.2015 is quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the seniority of the petitioner as per the selection list dated 17.07.2009 above Thiru D. Venkatesan (Seniority No.151) and consider her name in the panel for Senior Typist for the year 2012-13 with all monetary benefits within a reasonable period.
Law Points
- Seniority
- Promotion
- Probation
- Community Certificate Verification
- Delay in Appointment
Case Details
Mr. T. Ranganathan for Petitioner; Mr. UM. Ravichandran, Special Govt. Pleader for R1&R3; Mr. B. Vijay, SC For TNPSC For R2
The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department; The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission; The Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order rejecting promotion and seeking restoration of seniority.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 and direct the respondents to restore her seniority as per the selection list dated 17.07.2009 and consider her for promotion to Senior Typist with monetary benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's request for promotion was rejected due to alleged non-completion of probation period, which she attributed to the delay in appointment caused by community certificate verification.
Previous Decisions
The impugned order dated 21.05.2015 rejected the petitioner's request for promotion.
Issues
Whether the delay in appointment due to community certificate verification can affect the seniority and promotion of an employee who was already working in the same post.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she was appointed in 2007 under ST category and her community certificate was again referred for verification in 2009, causing delay in appointment; the delay should not affect her seniority.
Respondents contended that the petitioner's 2007 appointment was temporary and not in a sanctioned post; she was appointed only in 2009 and had not completed two years probation within three years for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi
The delay in appointment due to community certificate verification cannot be attributed to the employee; seniority should be reckoned from the date of selection list, not from the delayed appointment date.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Department during 2007 and has been working as a Typist continuously.
Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would vehemently contend that though the petitioner was selected during 2009, she was issued with an appointment order only during January 2012.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2016 challenging the order dated 21.05.2015 rejecting her promotion. The matter was heard and decided on 23.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
