Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53389 (MAD)

State of Tamil Nadu v. Kamala Krishnamoorthy

2026-06-02

N Senthilkumar, S M Subramaniam

body2026
JUDGMENT : S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. 1. Under assail is the writ order dated 28.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.20795 of 2018. The respondent is a retired Deputy Collector and presently, aged about 80 years. 2. State preferred the present Writ Appeal mainly on the ground that the respondent was not qualified for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on the crucial date for Deputy Collector panel on 31.12.1995, since she had completed the requisite training only on 07.02.1997. Thus, her name was passed over in respect of the panel of the year 1995-1996. However, she became qualified for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in the panel of the year 1997-1998. 3. Respondent earlier filed W.A.No.2547 of 2005 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 15.12.2010. The relief sought for in the said writ petition was to direct the respondents therein to place the writ petitioner/respondent herein notionally on par with her immediate juniors Thiru.N.Venugopal, J.Prahalya and M.Ramani in the post of Deputy Collector with effect from their promotion with all consequential monetary benefits. Challenging the said Writ Order, the respondent herein preferred W.A.No.447 of 2011 and a Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the Writ Court. The said writ petition related to the panel of the year 1995 - 1996. However, the respondent has not pursued her remedy vigilantly and after a lapse of about 15 years, a representation was submitted to the Government to include her name in the panel of the year 1997 - 1998 for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on 21.06.2013, 26.10.2013, 19.05.2014 and 02.07.2014. The said representation was rejected by the Government by passing a speaking order vide G.O.(2D) No.390 Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 20.12.2017. Challenging the rejection order, Writ Petition in W.P.No.20795 of 2018 was filed. Even at the time of filing the writ petition, the respondent was aged about 73 years. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the respondent was qualified for inclusion in the panel of the year 1997-1998. 4. The Government, while considering the representation has categorically considered the claim of the respondent and found that the respondent is not eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in the panel of the year 1997-1998. 4. The Government, while considering the representation has categorically considered the claim of the respondent and found that the respondent is not eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in the panel of the year 1997-1998. Consequently, the respondent retired from service, litigative process was undertaken by the respondent after her retirement and presently, she is 80 years old. Though Writ Court recorded these facts, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the Government Order, which is not in consonance with the principles for grant of promotion. Respondent submitted her representation belatedly in the year 2013, after a lapse of 15 years from the date of issuance of panel. Any grievance relating to seniority and promotion must be addressed within a period of three years as per the Service Rules in force. 5. For all these reasons, the present Writ Appeal is allowed. Writ Order impugned dated 28.02.2025 in W.P.No.20795 of 2018 is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.