When Promotion can be denied
K Natrajan filed a petition in the High Court of Madras seeking promotion of his son N Sivakumar to the post of Divisional Engineer. N Sivakumar, during the early period of his employment with Highway Department of Government of Tamil Nadu at Kadampatty Panchayat Union had had an episode of mental illness which was certified as 50% disability.
Mr N Sivakumar vs The Government of Tamil Nadu on 23 April, 2019
Court:High Court of Madras
Judge:Justice SM Subramaniam
Facts:
K Natrajan, was employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Highway Department of Government of Tamil Nadu at Kadampatty Panchayat Union when he had his first episode of mental illness (Certificate of 50% disability – Mental Illness). Following this, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer. However, when he was due for his next promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer in 2017–2018, promotion was denied on grounds of incompetency.
N Shivkumar, K Natrajan’s father appealed to Madras High Court to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to promote his son to the post of Divisional Engineer by restoring his seniority and service benefits with retrospective effect under the caveat of the Disability Act which states that ‘no promotion can be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability’.
Arguments by Respondent:
At first, it was pointed out thatthe level of incompetency referred to by the Highway Department of Government of Tamil Nadu, is reflected in the fact that the petition was filed by the father, who is appointed as the Legal Guardian under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Secondly, with reference to the Annual Confidential Reports, where self-assessment is to be filled by the concerned officer, no assessment was completed as according to the Respondent, K Natrajandid not have the “ability to give it”.
Judgment of the Court:
The Court opined that effective and efficient public administration as mandated by the Constitution of Indiais to provide services to the citizens without compromising the efficiency of administration by making appointments to services and posts. Thus, the efficiency in administration cannot be compromised or diluted by citing the provisions of a welfare legislation. The interpretation of such welfare legislation and General Laws should be in consonance with the constitutional principles to ensure efficiency of public administration.
Secondly, the purpose of maintaining the Confidential report, service records and personal assessmentsis to ascertain the capacity and capability of the public servant in providing appropriate service. In the present case, the annual confidential report clearly shows that K Natrajanwasunable to discharge his duties.
The Court went on further to say that the post of Divisional Engineer was an important post, requiring interactions with the Government as well as with the Courts and other authorities. As the writ petition itself was filed by the fatherit indicated that K Natrajan’swas indeed incapable.
In view of the above, the Court directed the Highway Department of Government of Tamil Naduto refer N Natrajanto a competent Government Medical Board to assess his medical condition and take a decision in accordance with the service Rules in force. Examples proffered by the Court were ofvoluntarily retirement, and if the Medical Board submits a report regarding mental capability, the competent authorities could initiate action for medical invalidation.
Regarding the plea filed for promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer, the Court stated that the post of Divisional Engineer was to be filled with qualifying and eligible persons and by following the rules in force, added that promotions, per se, could not be claimed as a matter of right. The competent authorities are bound to assess the eligibility, qualification and competence of the employee with reference to the Rules in force. The job profile and the nature of the duties and responsibilities were also to be considered.
Thus, the relief sought for promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer by restoring seniority was not accepted.
Filed Under: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Petitioner: N Sivakumar
Respondent: Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: W.P.No.7584 of 2019