IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.07.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P. No.22661 of 2009 and M.P. No. 2 of 2009 A.Shanmugam .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu rep.by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk Chennai - 600 006. 2.The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri. 3.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Harur, Dharmapuri District. 5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pappireddypatti Taluk Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the relevant records relating to the impugned promotion and posting order issued in Na.ka.No.13466/2009/A3/in Serial no.7 in respect of the petitioner alone dated 26.08.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and the consequential impugned relieving order issued in Na.Ka.No.7584/2009/A5 in serial No.2 in respect of the petitioner alone dated 06.09.2009 passed by the 5th respondent herein and to quash the same as arbitrary, unreasonable, improper, illegal and against established rules and regulations of the respondents violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and thereby directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as selection grade Village Administration Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bosi Nayakena Halli Village, Pappyreddypatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr. A.R.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.V.Viswanathan Additional Government Pleader. O R D E R On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petition is filed against the promotion order passed by the third respondent on 26.08.2009 and consequential relieving order passed by the 5th respondent on 06.09.2009 in so far as it relates to the petitioner and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as selection grade Village Administrative Officer, Bosi Nayakena Halli Village, Pappyreddypatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. 3. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 26.12.1987 and he was granted selection grade in the same post during 1998. The post of selection grade Village Administrative Officer (hereinafter referred to V.A.O.) is equivalent to the post of Junior Assistant and both the posts are feeder category for the next promotional post as Assistant. The petitioner has through his representation dated 02.11.2007 addressed to the third respondent expressed his willingness to be promoted to the post of Assistant. He was by order dated 20.02.2009 transferred as V.A.O. to Bosi Nayakena Halli Village and the petitioner duly joined in the promotional post. While he was working so, the petitioner forwarded his representation to the third respondent through proper channel i.e. 5th respondent thereby withdrawing his willingness given for promotion and to permit him to continue as V.A.O. That the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2009 is duly received by the third respondent. However, the third respondent has under the impugned order dated 26.08.2009 promoted the petitioner and few other V.A.Os. and Junior Assistants to the post of Assistants with transfer to different places. In pursuance of the same, the 5th respondent passed the consequential relieving order on 06.09.2009. Those orders of the respondents 3 and 5 are now under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The petitioner has by taking shelter under Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, challenged the impugned order on the ground that the third respondent ought not to have, after the petitioner relinquished his right of promotion https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ effected the order of promotion and the impugned order in so far as it relates to the petitioner is hence in violation of the right available to the Government servants under the above referred Rule. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would by relying upon two G.Os. referred to in para-7 and para-13 of the counter (1) G.O.pt.No.386, Revenue Department dated 01.10.2001 and (2) G.O.No.330, Revenue Department dated 12.07.2004 would seriously oppose the petitioner's claim on the ground that as per the amendment introduced through the G.O. to the relevant rule once the petitioner exercised his option for promotion the same cannot be withdrawn at later date. The learned Additional Government Pleader has also produced the copies of the G.Os. introducing one such instruction. But, in the considered view of this Court, the G.O. having the particular clause cannot have the effect of introducing any amendment to Rule 47. When the rule does not contain one such stipulation any amendment to the said Rule can be introduced not by way of G.O., but only by way of another rule in the manner known to law, as such the respondents cannot take shelter under the G.O. to defend the impugned order. 6. Even otherwise, the respondents ought to have before effecting any promotional order, duly considered the letter of relinquishment given by the petitioner and ought to have passed appropriate order, then to proceed further subject to such decision taken by the appropriate authority. The failure to adopt such course has now deprived the petitioner to duly represent his case before the authority concerned. 7. Under such circumstances, it is suffice if the respondent is first directed to consider the petitioner's letter of relinquishment of his promotion dated 18.06.2009 in the light of the reasons mentioned therein within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner for being personally heard. Till then the impugned order of promotion in so far as it relates to the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance and the petitioner be permitted to continue as selection grade Village Administrative Officer. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kj To 1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk Chennai - 600 006. 2.The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri. 3.The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Harur, Dharmapuri District. 5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pappireddypatti Taluk Dharmapuri District. +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 50521 +1cc to Mr.A.R.Suresh, Advocate Sr 50300 SGL(CO) km/30.7. W.P. No.22661 of 2009 and M.P. No. 2 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/