Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistant in 2007 after his father died in harness in 2001. His services were regularized only in 2016 and probation declared in 2017, a delay of ten years. He was promoted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I (Assistant) in November 2017. In 2020-21, when his turn for promotion to Deputy Block Development Officer arose, he was bypassed on the ground that a 17(b) charge was pending and that he lacked the requisite one-year service qualification in the post of Assistant as per G.O.Ms. No. 55 dated 26.05.2017. The charge was later dropped, but the petitioner claimed that his immediate junior was promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 30.04.2015 while he was still not considered. The respondent admitted the administrative delay in regularization but argued that the petitioner completed one year service only after the panel preparation and was promptly promoted once he met the qualification. The court identified the sole issue as whether the petitioner could be denied promotion for want of service qualification when the department's own delay prevented him from acquiring it. Relying on the Division Bench decisions in P.T. Ravindran v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.A.No. 1582 of 2011) and District Collector, Thoothukudi v. S. Sasisivanandam (W.A.No. 391 of 2012), the court held that an employee cannot be blamed for not possessing service qualification if the department head failed to give him a posting to acquire it. The court found that the respondent unequivocally attributed the delay to administrative lapses, making it clear that the petitioner was not at fault. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed with directions to grant retrospective promotion to Deputy Block Development Officer with notional benefits and monetary arrears within twelve weeks, applying the feeder category seniority fixed in the proceedings dated 14.09.2020. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Service Qualification - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner, a compassionate appointee, was denied promotion to Deputy Block Development Officer on ground of not completing one year service qualification due to administrative delay in regularization and probation. Court, following precedents in P.T. Ravindran v. State of Tamil Nadu and District Collector, Thoothukudi v. S. Sasisivanandam, held that employee cannot be blamed for department's failure to give posting, and directed retrospective promotion with notional benefits and monetary arrears (Paras 8-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner could be denied promotion on the ground that he did not satisfy the condition of service qualification for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, on the date his immediate junior was promoted.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to pass orders promoting the petitioner to Deputy Block Development Officer based on feeder category seniority as per proceedings dated 14.09.2020, with notional promotion and monetary benefits along with arrears, to be completed within twelve weeks. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Service qualification can only be acquired if posting is given
- employee cannot be blamed for administrative delay in regularization
- denial of promotion on that ground is arbitrary
