W.P.No.29452 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.29068 and 29069 of 2023 D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
In this case, the petitioner had originally prayed for an interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner promoting the private respondents 4 and 5 till the disposal of the writ petition.
[08/06, 07:26] sekarreporter1: [07/06, 14:41] sekarreporter1:
https://youtu.be/2_12RfeYNkM
[07/06, 14:41] sekarreporter1: 👍
[08/06, 07:27] sekarreporter1: W.P.No.29452 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.29068 and 29069 of 2023 D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
In this case, the petitioner had originally prayed for an interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner promoting the private respondents 4 and 5 till the disposal of the writ petition.
- The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are seniors to the respondents 4 and 5 and the respondents 4 and 5 cannot be promoted ahead of the petitioners. In that context, the interim relief was prayed for. Since the matter is pending from the year 2023 and no counter affidavit was filed inspite of the matter being adjourned on repeated occasions, on 05.03.2024, a Co-ordinate Bench granted an interim direction to maintain status quo in all respects for a period of three weeks. The said interim order has been periodically extended and is in force as on today.
- In view of the said interim order, the promotion in respect of 31 vacancies could not be effected. Even persons, who are admitted seniors of the petitioners could not be promoted. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General-VII appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the official respondents are filing counter affidavit today and they are ready to argue the matter in any short date that may be adjourned by this Court. However, the entire exercise of granting promotion need not be kept in abeyance.
- The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the respondents 1 and 2 have not taken into account all the vacancies and cannot partially grant promotion only to 24 persons alone. He is not averse for modifying the interim order only in respect of respondents 4 and 5 alone provided the official respondents grant promotions and fill up all vacancies, which are there as on date.
- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent would submit that he has already filed counter affidavit and also vacate stay application.
- The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent would submit that a proper reading of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, it would be clear that the respondents 4 and 5 should be considered as seniors to the petitioners and once 4th respondent has filed his counter and is ready to go ahead with the matter, the Court need not modify the order by leaving out respondents 4 and 5 alone, they should also be granted promotion, and everything can be subject to the final orders passed in the writ petition.
- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of newly impleaded respondents would submit that they have nothing to do with the main dispute. They are fairly seniors to both the petitioners as well as the respondents 4 and 5. They have been awaiting promotion for the past three years and when the promotion is now about to be effected, suddenly the interim order of status quo in all respects is granted and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are not proceedings with the matter.
- I have considered the submissions made by all the learned counsel.
- It is seen that the petitioners are ready to go ahead with the arguments in the writ petition. The party respondents viz., 4th respondent has already filed his counter affidavit. The officials respondents are filing counter affidavit in the Registry today. As a matter of fact, a copy is circulated to the Court also. Therefore, the main writ petition is ready for arguments.
- As far as the interim order is concerned, originally the petitioners have prayed for an interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from promoting the respondents 4 and 5 alone. Only for the default on behalf of the official respondents as status quo in all respects was granted by this Court. Further, even in respect of respondents 4 and 5, the injunction need not be in the form as prayed for by the petitioners, but it can be in a modified form. The petitioners’ grievance can be redressed upon their success or otherwise in the main writ petition.
- In that view of the matter, the interim direction which was granted on 05.03.2024 directing the official respondents to maintain status quo in all respects is modified as follows:-
(i) The Official Respondents shall proceed with the exercise of granting promotion;
(ii) In respect of respondents 4 and 5 also, the Official Respondents can consider their cases for promotion, but keep the results as far as respondents 4 and 5 in a sealed cover and the actual promotion orders need not be issued in respect of respondents 4 and 5;
(iii) The entire promotion effected will be subject to the result of the writ petition. - While arguing for modification of interim order, both sides learned counsel have made substantial arguments. Therefore, treat this case as partheard and post the matter for continuation of arguments on 10.06.2024.
04.06.2024
(2/2)
dm
Note: Issue order copy on 06.06.2024.
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
dm
W.P.No.29452 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.29068 and 29069 of 2023
04.06.2024
(2/2)
