1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:03.09.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.149 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary, Agriculture (Vee Nee.1) Department, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3.The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai-9. ... Appellants/Respondents vs. J.Kalyanasundari ... Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 19.12.20088, made in W.P.(MD)No.3064 of 2008. WP(MD)No.3064 of 2008:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to promote the petitioner temporarily to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture with effect from 30.12.2007, the date on which promotion list was published for the post of Assistant Derector of Agriculture wit all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Appellants ... Mr.D.Gandhi Raj, Government Advocate. For Respondent ... Mr.L.Shaji Chellan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein. 2.The respondent was not included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 on the ground that an enquiry was pending. The learned Judge noticed that the crucial date for the said panel was 01.04.2007 and on which date no enquiry was pending against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent, as, admittedly, charge memo was issued only on 29.09.2008. That apart, the panel was for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, much prior to the date of issuance of the charge memo. Having found so, the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition. 3.We have carefully considered the above findings. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4.In terms of the rule relating to the consideration for promotion, there must be actually charges should have been framed for the purpose of contending that enquiry was pending and unless such charges were framed on the crucial date, promotion cannot be denied and it cannot be said that enquiry was also pending. In that view of the matter, the crucial date being 01.04.2007 and on which date no enquiry was pending, failure to include the respondent's name in the panel for promotion to the Assistant Director of Agriculture for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 is unsustainable. Hence, we find no error in the order of the learned Judge. 5.Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 is also dismissed. sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To: 1.The Secretary to Government, Agriculture (Vee Nee.1) Department, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3.The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai-9. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.33922 + 2 cc's to Mr.L.Shaji Chellan, Advocate, SR No.33710 Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.149 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1/2010 Dated:03.09.2010 gb RJ/15.9.2010 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/