Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1686 (MAD)

I. Yesudas v. The Inspector General of Registration & Another

2008-06-11

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to include the name of the applicant in the Junior Assistants panel, fit for promotion as Assistant, for the year 1990-91, passed by the 1st respondent in No.30441/01/90, dated 1. 91, at the appropriate place and promote the applicant herein as Assistant, immediately, with all seniority, monetary and other attendant benefits. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had joined in service as a Junior Assistant, on 7. 1980, and his services as such was regularised with effect from 7. 1980. The petitioner had passed account test for subordinate officers, as well as the other departmental tests, on 18. 1990. Though he was fully qualified to be promoted and included in the panel for promotion as an Assistant in the year 1990, his name had not been included in the said panel. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the crucial date for the preparation of the panel is the 15th of March of every year. The crucial date for the preparation of Assistant panel, for the year 1990-91, was 190. On that date, the applicant had not qualified himself to be included in the Assistant panel for 1990-91. The applicant qualified himself only, on 18. 90. This fact was admitted by the applicant in Para 6(c) of the application. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that since the petitioner had not passed the required tests on the crucial date, i.e., 13. 90, to be included in the panel for promotion as an Assistant for the year 1990-91, the petitioners name could not be included in the said panel. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not made out a case for this Court to grant the prayer as prayed for in the above writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.