In a recent judgement the Madras High Court Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Poornima tackled key issues surrounding promotion and service jurisprudence, specifically the judicial boundaries in addressing promotions within government service. The appellant, M. Palanisamy, sought intervention to challenge his reversion from Sanitary Supervisor back to his original role as Water Supply Pump Operator.

The appellant, M. Palanisamy, initially joined the Town Panchayat Services as a Non-Muster Roll employee in 1987. His role was later regularised as a Motor Pump Operator in 2006. In 2011, he was promoted to Sanitary Supervisor by the Executive Officer of the Punjaipugalur Town Panchayat. However, in 2014, this promotion was rescinded, citing his ineligibility under the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment (Qualification and Recruitment of Office Assistants) Rules, 1988. These rules specify feeder roles eligible for the Sanitary Supervisor position, which do not include the Motor Pump Operator role.

Represented by Advocate A. Maheswaran, the appellant argued that it is a well-established principle in service law that every government servant deserves a promotional path to prevent career stagnation. Palanisamy maintained that his promotion to Sanitary Supervisor was rightful, as he had been effectively performing the responsibilities of this role. His counsel asserted that rescinding his promotion overlooked this principle and sought judicial intervention to restore his position.

The respondents, represented by Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan, argued that Palanisamy’s promotion to Sanitary Supervisor was procedurally incorrect. They highlighted that under the 1988 Rules, feeder roles eligible for Sanitary Supervisor include Public Health Workers, Sanitary Workers, Scavengers, and similar roles, whereas Palanisamy’s designation as a Motor Pump Operator did not qualify. They emphasised that his reversion was a necessary correction, applied uniformly to similar cases, and presented the seniority list, confirming that the appellant would be considered for promotion to Junior Assistant if a vacancy arose and he was the senior-most eligible candidate.

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s ruling, reiterating that promotions within government service must adhere to established statutory rules and eligibility criteria. The Court emphasised that while promotional avenues should be available to prevent career stagnation, such opportunities must respect seniority and statutory qualifications. The Court observed:

“If vacancy arises in the post of Junior Assistant to be filled through promotion and if the appellant is eligible, then we do not find any reason why the official respondents would deny him that opportunity. As on date, that promotional avenue had not yet arisen. The Court cannot step into the shoes of the Executive and issue a direction for promotion of the appellant overriding other similarly placed individuals, who also awaiting promotion.”

The Court ultimately dismissed Palanisamy’s appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s order of reversion and holding that his position as Motor Pump Operator did not qualify him for promotion to Sanitary Supervisor. In its concluding remarks, the Court noted:

“We are afraid that we cannot interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had very correctly observed that the post in which the appellant is now employed is not the feeder category for the promotion to the Sanitary Supervisor/Sanitary Maistry. Therefore, in view of that particular fact, which fact cannot be disputed or denied, we hold that the appeal filed by the appellant herein will necessarily have to suffer an order of dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.”

Cause Title: M. Palanisamy v. The Director of Town Panchayats & Ors.

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. A. Maheswaran and Mr.R. Kathiresa Perumal

Advocate for the Respondents: AAG Veerakathiravan; Mr. M. Senthil Ayyanar and Mr.AN.Ramanathan