WA No. 635 of 2023 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WA No. 635 of 2023 and CMP No. 6261 of 2023 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 2. ..Appellant(s) Vs K. Sivalingam No.50 J, Malaivasal, Ulmandaapam, Trichy 620 002. ..Respondent(s) WA No. 635 of 2023 Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by this Honble High Court, in WP No.20939/2009 and consequently dismiss the WP No.20939/2009 WA No. 635 of 2023 For Appellant(s): Mr.C.H.Mahith Sai for Mr.K.Kathiresan For Respondent(s): No appearance WA No. 635 of 2023 __________ Page2 of 4 Judgment (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 21.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.20939/2009. Tamilnadu State Express Transport Corporation is the appellant before this Court. 2. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant to give promotion to the post of Checking Inspector to the respondent on par with his juniors. 3. The respondent was appointed as a conductor on 12.10.1978 and his service was regularised in the sanctioned post with effect from 01.09.1980. He attained the age of superannuation and allowed to retire from service on 31.01.2011. As per common service rules and government letter dated 16.08.2001, promotion to the post of Checking Inspector was considered from the selection grade conductors who have obtained 24 years of review. 4. In the present case, one Mr.H.Jabber and Thiru.V.Mani had obtained 24 years of review on 01.05.2003 and 01.11.2003 respectively. Thus, they were considered for promotion to the post of Checking Inspector during 04.10.2007 and 01.04.2008 respectively. WA No. 635 of 2023 __________ Page3 of 4 5. In view of the fact that the respondent suffered three punishments, he is not eligible for promotion during the currency of punishments. Thus, his case was not considered for promotion. The respondent retired on 31.01.2011. It appears that the case of the respondent was not considered initially since two of his seniors was initially considered in the year 2003 and subsequently, his case was not considered on account of currency of three punishments. This being the factual position, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the decision taken by the appellant for not granting promotion to the post of Checking Inspector to the respondent. 6. For all these reasons, the impugned writ order dated 21.01.2021 in W.P.No.20939 of 2009 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 03-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VSI To Mr.K. Sivalingam No.50 J, Malaivasal, Ulmandaapam, Trichy 620 002. WA No. 635 of 2023 __________ Page4 of 4 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR J. vsi WA No. 635 of 2023 and CMP No. 6261 of 2023 03-06-2026