IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.7.2008 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.NO.13834 OF 2008 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2008 M.Prakasan Sub Judge (Senior Division), Chidambaram 608 001. Cuddalore District. Petitioner -vs- The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai 600 104. Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceeding vide R.O.C.No.6362A/2007- B2 dated 16.2.2008 Official Memorandum of the respondent to quash the rejection order of request for seniority and direct the respondent to place the petitioner in appropriate original seniority with all attendant benefits forthwith. For petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar For respondent : Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam ORDER (Order of the court was made by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.) The petitioner, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) represented for restoration of his seniority at serial number 9. The Administrative Side of this Court having rejected the representation, he has challenged the communication dated 16th February 2008 issued under the signature of the Registrar General. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner was selected for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission ('Commission' for short) and appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division by Government Order dated 6th June 1991. In the merit list, his position was only as serial number 9. In the year 2002-2003, when the others were considered for promotion to the higher rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division), the petitioner was not promoted and subsequently, he was promoted on 18th March 2004. Thereafter, the seniority of the petitioner was not restored over his juniors in the lower cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Aggrieved by that, he preferred the writ petition. 3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, while giving details of service career of the petitioner, produced relevant file showing the grounds for rejection. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival submissions. 5. On the record, it appears that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Selection Committee for promotion on 28th November 2001 along with 25 others. In view of the pendency of Vigilance Enquiry, the case of the petitioner was deferred. The petitioner preferred a representation on 11th April 2002 for his promotion. His case was again considered by the Committee in its meeting held on 8th April 2003. The said Committee also considered the representation of the petitioner and made the following observation:- "Considered the representation of Thiru.M.Prakasan. Considering the remarks recorded by the Portfolio Judges in the confidential reports, work done statements and Vigilance reports, it is resolved that Thiru.M.Prakasan is found not suitable for promotion to the Cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division), for the present." 6. In view of the aforesaid reason shown while rejecting the representation, the petitioner's case was deferred in the said proceedings dated 8th April 2003. Subsequently, he, having been found fit, was promoted with effect from 18th March 2004. 7. One of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is that, the order of promotion with effect from 18th March 2004, having been granted on the petitioner's representation, should date back to the date from which the petitioner's juniors were promoted. But, such submission cannot be accepted, the order of promotion having been issued from a prospective date and not from a retrospective date. The petitioner, having been promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) from 18th March 2004, cannot claim seniority over others who have been promoted prior to the said date. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. We find no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssk. To The Registrar General High Court of Judicature, Madras - 104. 1 cc To Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, Advocate, SR.40523. W.P.No.13834/2008 GGK(CO) RVL 11.08.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/