IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.6949 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.9155 of 1998) C.Rohini Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram district, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.9155 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to direct respondents herein to promote the applicant as Tahsildar based on his inclusion of his name in the panel of Deputy Tahsildar of the year 1995 by taking into consideration his services rendered in the Civil supplies and Consumer Protection department as Superintendent and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with his juniors who are promoted in the Kancheepuram district revenue unit in the year 1995. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents: Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, G.A. ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is to direct respondents herein to promote the applicant as Tahsildar based on his inclusion of his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ name in the panel of Deputy Tahsildar of the year 1995 by taking into consideration his services rendered in the Civil supplies and Consumer Protection department as Superintendent and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with his juniors who are promoted in the Kancheepuram district revenue unit in the year 1995. 2.The counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement stating that he has returned the papers and had given consent for change of vakalat. In view of the same, the matter is listed today by printing the name of the petitioner. There is no appearance and hence the writ petition is taken up and disposed off on merits. 3.The petitioner while serving as a Revenue Inspector claimed to be fully eligible for the promotion as Tahsildar, exercised his option for the same, based on the inclusion of his name in the panel of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1995. The name of the petitioner was not considered. Several representations were made by the petitioner. The authorities were of the view that the petitioner did not complete the magisterial training as required in Rule 7(b) of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules and that the petitioner did not complete the probation before the crucial date for considering his case of promotion to the post of Tahsildar in terms of Rule 8(a) of the above stated rules. The authorities having rejected his claim for the post of Tahsildar for the above stated reason. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the second respondent on 08.10.1998. 4.The petitioner has not stated as to whether the appeal has to be disposed of on merits. In such an event it would suffice if a direction is issued to the said authority to dispose of the appeal not already disposed off on merits. If the appeal has been disposed off on merits it is for the petitioner to pursue the remedy if any in accordance with law if aggrieved. 5.The Writ petition stands disposed off as above. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar pri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram district, Kancheepuram. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.7346,7168 W.P.No.6949 of 2006 (O.A.No.9155 of 1998) MG {CO} TP/16.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/