Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an ex-serviceman with ITI (Electrician) and Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering, was appointed as ITI Helper (Trainee) in TANGEDCO in 2014. He later discovered that the seventh respondent, who was junior to him in the ex-servicemen employment register, was appointed as Technical Assistant (Electrical) in 2016. The petitioner contended that he was senior and fully qualified for that post and that his name ought to have been sponsored by the employment exchange. He made several representations and filed W.P.(MD)No.5049 of 2018, pursuant to which the second respondent was directed to consider his representation. The second respondent, by order dated 28.11.2018, rejected his request on the grounds that his name was not sponsored for the Technical Assistant post and he had not submitted any application or attended the interview. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents defended the rejection, pointing out that the petitioner was sponsored only for the ITI Helper post based on his ITI qualification, while the Technical Assistant post required a Diploma in ECE, and the seventh respondent had been sponsored and selected through due process. Additionally, an internal selection for Technical Assistant in 2019 had a cut-off date of regularization on 01.04.2014, and the petitioner, regularized on 01.03.2015, did not fall within the zone. The court observed that promotion is not a matter of right and that consideration arises only when a selection process is initiated. The petitioner, not having been sponsored and not having applied, could not claim a right to be considered. The court noted the principle in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab that consideration for promotion is a fundamental right but held that it did not apply in the absence of an existing selection process in which the petitioner was eligible. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Right to Consideration vs. Right to Promotion - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee; the right is limited to consideration when a selection process is initiated and the employee falls within the zone of consideration. The petitioner, an ITI Helper, sought appointment as Technical Assistant based on his seniority in the ex-servicemen employment register and a Division Bench judgment emphasizing fair application of reservation benefits. However, the petitioner's name was not sponsored by the employment exchange for the Technical Assistant post, he did not apply or attend the interview for that post, and the internal selection later conducted in 2019 considered only those regularized on or before 01.04.2014, whereas the petitioner was regularized on 01.03.2015, placing him outside the zone of selection. Held that the rejection order was justified and the writ petition was dismissed (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) on par with the seventh respondent, despite not having been sponsored by the employment exchange for that post and not having applied for it, based on his seniority in ex-servicemen registration.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right
- consideration for promotion is a fundamental right only when a selection process is initiated and the employee is within the zone of consideration
- a candidate not sponsored by the employment exchange for a post and who did not apply for it cannot claim appointment based solely on seniority in the employment register.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 67
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:1033
Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy, Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Mr.B.Ramanathan, M/s.M.Parameswari
1.The Commissioner, Department of Employment and Training, Chennai; 2.The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO; 3.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO; 4.The Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Madurai; 5.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle (Metro); 6.The Superintending Engineer, Protection and Communication Circle, TANTRANSCO; 7.K.Sethurajan
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 rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) in TANGEDCO and seeking a direction for consideration along with the seventh respondent.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the proceedings dated 28.11.2018 of the second respondent and a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to further positions under TANGEDCO on par with K.Sethurajan, the seventh respondent.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, though senior and possessing a Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering, was not sponsored by the employment exchange for the Technical Assistant post, while a junior candidate was sponsored and appointed. His request for parity was rejected by the second respondent, leading to the present writ.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.5049 of 2018, and the court by order dated 09.03.2018 directed the second respondent to consider his representation. The second respondent then passed the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 rejecting the request.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) despite not being sponsored by the employment exchange and not having applied for the post
Whether the rejection order dated 28.11.2018 is sustainable in law
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was senior in the ex-servicemen register, fully qualified, and his non-sponsorship violated his rights; relied on a Division Bench judgment emphasizing reasonable application of ex-servicemen reservation benefits.
Respondents' counsel argued that the petitioner was sponsored only for ITI Helper based on his ITI qualification, while the Technical Assistant post required a specific diploma; the seventh respondent was sponsored and selected as per merit and roster; the petitioner did not apply for Technical Assistant and later internal selection had a cut-off date that excluded him.
Ratio Decidendi
Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The right to consideration for promotion arises only when a selection process is initiated and the employee is within the zone of consideration. A candidate who is not sponsored by the employment exchange for a particular post and who fails to submit an application or attend the interview cannot claim a right to be appointed merely on the basis of seniority in the employment register. The rejection of such a claim is justified.
Judgment Excerpts
Promotion per se cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the employee. No doubt, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of the employee.
In the said selection also the last employee selected under ECE branch as per merit and communal roster is 01.04.2014. But, Thiru.A.Govindarajan regularised on 01.03.2015. Hence he had not reached the zone of selection.
Procedural History
The petitioner, after his appointment as ITI Helper, discovered that a junior candidate had been appointed as Technical Assistant. He made representations, then filed W.P.(MD)No.5049 of 2018. The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation. The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 rejecting the claim. The present writ was filed challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
