1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD).No.772 of 2011 S.Pushkala Kumari : Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The Managing Director, TWAD Board, Chepauk, Chennai. : Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07.07.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.7501 of 2011 on the file of this Court. WP(MD)No.7501 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Draughting Officer with effect from the date on which she becomes eligible for the promotion as per the seniority list. For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY P.JYOTHIMANI, J] The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.07.2011 made in W.P.(MD)No.7501 of 2011, in and by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for a direction against the respondent to promote her to the post of Junior Draughting Officer with effect from the date on which she became eligible for promotion. 2. According to the appellant, she has possessed a suitable qualification, which has not been prescribed admittedly by the TWAD Board. However, the claim of the appellant is that her qualification has been recognized by the other authorities and, therefore, she should be considered for promotion on that basis. It is in those https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 circumstances, holding that promotion is not a matter of right and it is for the employer to consider, the learned Single Judge, in our considered view, has correctly dismissed the Writ Petition, which requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. However, as and when the appellant gets herself qualified as per the norms prescribed by the respondent, it is for her to approach the authority concerned, in which event, it is for the authority concerned to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. It is also made clear that if any proposal is pending before the respondent for consideration, it is open to the respondent to pursue the same, on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI Act) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Managing Director, TWAD Board, Chepauk, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, Advocate SR.No.28450 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader SR.No.28722 SML akm/07.09.11 /2p-4c/ Judgment made in W.A.(MD).No.772 of 2011 Dated:- 22.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/