Background Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a Reader on 8th September 1997 in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. She was promoted to the post of Sheristadar and appointed at Sub Court, Sivagangai, on 30th April 2025. The next promotional post eligible for her was Bench Clerk Grade I. On 8th July 2025, she was issued a charge memo under Rule 17B for a delinquent act occurred on 19th.

On 29th October 2025, when the panel was drawn for promotion for the year 2025, the writ petitioner was overlooked because of the pending disciplinary proceedings. Her junior was promoted. Later, on 9th February 2026, the charge against the petitioner was converted from 17B to 17A and she was imposed with punishment of censure. Because of the currency of the punishment of censure in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conditions of Service Act, 2016, the writ petitioner was once again overlooked and on 10th July 2026, her two juniors namely were promoted to the post of Bench Clerk Grade I.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Madras High Court.

It was argued by the petitioner that the charge memo issued on 8th July 2025 under Rule 17B, was later converted to Rule 17A. Therefore, such conversion on 9th February 2026 should actually relate back to 8th July 2025. She contended that the mere pendency of a charge memo issued under 17A is not a bar for inclusion of her name in the approved list. The conversion should be related back to the date of issuance of the charge memo under 17B. Therefore, she should be given promotion on par with the junior who was promoted on 29th October 2025.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that promotion is given based on merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal and mere seniority will not give any vested right to the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner was under the cloud of a disciplinary proceeding on 8th July 2025 and further under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conditions of Service Act, 2016. Therefore, due to the pendency of the charge memo, she was overlooked when the panel was considered for promotion.

It was further submitted that the petitioner was not considered for promotion when the panel was drawn on 29th October 2025 and the said disciplinary proceeding ended up in a punishment of censure imposed on 9th February 2026 and therefore, for a further period of one year during its currency, under the Service Rules, she was not eligible to be considered for promotion.

Findings and observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that as per the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conditions of Service Act, 2016, the petitioner was rightly not considered for promotion on 29th October 2025 when the panel was drawn because on that date there was a charge memo issued on 8th July 2025 under Rule 17B against the writ petitioner. It was further observed that on 10th July 2026, when the petitioner's juniors were promoted, there was a punishment of censure suffered by the petitioner on 9th February 2026 that was in operation.

It was held by the Division Bench that the claim of the petitioner that the earlier charge memo issued on 8th July 2025 under Rule 17B, should have been issued under Rule 17A because of the later conversion is not acceptable. It was further held that there is no scope of such relation back in service.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : P.Chandra Vs. The Principal District Judge, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai

Case No. : W.P(MD)No.24429 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner : R.V.Rajkumar

Counsel for the Respondent : N.Mohideen Basha, Standing Counsel