IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Writ Petition No.26678 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 & 2 of 2008 Dr.M.Selvaraj ... Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 600 006. 3. Dr.R.T.Porkaipandian Deputy Director of Health Services, Coimbatore. ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine pursuant to the panel drawn for the year 2008 – 2009 without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the second respondent in his proceedings Memo R.No.154037/DA/99/S1 dated 12.10.2004. For petitioner : Mr.K.Sridhar for M/s.Sridhar Associates For respondents : Mr..Vijay, G.A. 1 & 2 For respondent-3 : Mr.S.Vijayakumar O R D E R The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, in pursuance to the panel drawn for the year 2008-09 without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the second respondent in his proceedings vide Memo R.No.154037 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dt.12.10.2004. 2. The reading of the prayer itself would show that writ framed is not competent as the prayer made is against the rules. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to act against the law. 3. At the time of the arguments, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in pursuance to the charge memo he was held guilty and punishment was also awarded. Therefore, he is now entitled to be considered for promotion. 4. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is again misconceived. In the event of the petitioner being exonerated of the charges, he is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date of his juniors were promoted, and not in case where person is held guilty and awarded punishment. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was found guilty and punishment also awarded. 6. Therefore, his right to claim promotion would only arise when the department decides to give promotion in future. 7. The petitioner does not have any claim for promotion against the panel of 2008-09, because of the departmental proceedings which culminated into the order of punishment. 8. For the reasons stated, there is no merit in the writ petition and is ordered to be dismissed. No cost. M.P.Nos 1 & 2/2008 are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar vaan To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 600 006. 1 cc to Mr.K.Sridhar Associates, Advocate, Sr.No.6447 1 cc to Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.6568 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.6795 W. P. No.26678 of 2008 RS {CO} TP/22.2.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/