Authority: Madras High Court, Bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition No. W.P. No.34864 of 2002 filed by P. Sheik Dawood, residing at 15, Mallamal Street, Pettai, Tirunelveli, seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus under Article 226 to compel Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation (TANSI) to promote him to Grade‑I Foreman with retrospective effect and attendant benefits.
  • The petitioner alleged that his name was placed at Serial No.24 in the promotion panel for Foreman Grade‑I (from Grade‑II) dated 11.01.2002/31.01.2002 but he was denied promotion due to adverse remarks in his confidential report concerning poor performance.
  • He contended that no adverse disciplinary order had been passed, that a charge memo dated 12.10.2001 containing four charges was issued, he submitted his explanation on 20.10.2001, and no order was passed on the charge memo, which he argued should amount to acceptance of his explanation.
  • The petitioner further submitted a representation on 13.03.2002 requesting deletion of the adverse entry; the respondent replied that his request could not be admitted and that his promotion would be considered in the next panel after future performance review.
  • The petitioner argued that denial of promotion violated Rule 19 of the TANSI Service Rules, which mandates consideration of merit and ability alongside seniority.
  • The respondent counter‑claimed that the Promotion Committee excluded three employees (including the petitioner) from the panel of 29 on grounds of adverse confidential report remarks and poor performance, citing grave charges (Nos.3 and 4) of tearing office records, using unparliamentary language, disrupting office functioning, disobeying superiors, habitual tardiness, and absenteeism.
  • The respondent also referenced a similar case of Thiru. Sundar Raj (W.P. No.37416 of 2002) where the Court, on 21 September 2012, upheld the departmental decision after the adverse entries were communicated, represented, and rejected, stating that the Court cannot substitute its view for an administrative decision.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that inclusion in the promotion panel or seniority alone is insufficient; merit and ability are primary factors per Rule 19, and the adverse confidential report justified exclusion.
  • Noting the prior judgment and the presence of a charge memo indicating misconduct, the Court found no ground for interference with the administrative action.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Topics: Promotion Dispute, Administrative Law