[ High Court of Judicature at Madras ]

Panel Inclusion Does Not Confer a Right to Promotion When Disciplinary Proceedings Are Pending, Rules Madras HC Division Bench

The Madras High Court held that inclusion of a government servant's name in a promotion panel is a procedural step, not a vested right, and pending TDP charges justify deferment of actual promotion.

Manaswi Singh — High Court of Judicature at Madras — 21 July 2026 — WA No. 435 of 2024

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, led by Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar, allowed an intra-court appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and set aside a Single Judge order that had directed the promotion of a Deputy Inspector General of Registration despite pending disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The Division Bench held that the preparation of a promotion panel is a purely procedural step and that no enforceable right to promotion flows from inclusion in that panel. When departmental charges are initiated before actual promotion is granted, the government is entitled to defer promotion, regardless of whether the disciplinary proceedings were initiated before or after the panel was drawn up.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

V.A. Anand, holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration, was included in the panel prepared on 27 October 2022 for promotion to the post of Additional Inspector General of Registration. After the panel was prepared, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the case was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings as TDP No. 04/2023 on the file of the Principal Secretary/Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore.

Acting on those proceedings, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 45, Commercial Tax and Registration (H2) Department, dated 20 April 2023. The order stated that Anand's name would not be considered for promotion to the post of Additional Inspector General of Registration because a departmental disciplinary proceeding was pending against him before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings at Coimbatore. Anand challenged that Government Order by filing WP No. 17040 of 2023.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, reasoning that since Anand's name had already been included in the panel, a right had accrued to him and the subsequent initiation of departmental proceedings could not bar promotion. The Single Judge read Section 7 and Schedule XI of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 as supporting that conclusion. The State — through the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H2) Department, and the Inspector General of Registration — preferred WA No. 435 of 2024 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Competing Arguments on the Statute

Mr. P.V. Balasubramanian, Additional Advocate General for the State, submitted that the Single Judge's proposition ran counter to the purpose of deferring promotions and the consolidated instructions issued by the Government. He argued that mere preparation of a panel confers no right on an officer and that the Government has the power to defer promotion until disciplinary proceedings are disposed of.

He relied on a 2020 Division Bench judgment in The Director General of Police, Chennai and Others v. K. Pitchai (WA (MD) No. 64 of 2019, dated 4 December 2020). That bench had held that the critical event activating the bar to promotion is the framing of specific charges or the filing of a charge sheet — not the mere commencement of disciplinary proceedings. It had also clarified that “the commencement of disciplinary proceedings is distinct from the deferment of promotion.”

Mr. A. Navaneetha Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Anand, countered that the facts were distinguishable from K. Pitchai. He relied on a 2021 Division Bench judgment in Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department v. M. Balamohana Murugan (WA Nos. 271 of 2020 and 626 of 2021, dated 2 September 2021), which in turn had followed V. Visweswaran v. Director of Handloom and Textiles, (2021) 5 MLJ 97. Those judgments had emphasised that what matters is the status of proceedings as on the crucial date for panel preparation, and that Section 7(1) of the 2016 Act bars inclusion in the panel only where specific charges are framed or a charge sheet is filed as on the crucial date. On that basis, he argued the writ order was correct and the appeal should be dismissed.

Legal Principles the Bench Articulated

The Division Bench set out a structured list of governing legal principles on promotion before examining the statute. The key propositions recorded by the bench are:

Promotion cannot be claimed as an absolute right by a government servant.
Consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee.
Mere inclusion of a name in the panel does not confer any vested right to promotion.
Preparation of the panel is a departmental procedure to finalise names of eligible candidates waiting for promotion. Panel per se confers no right.
A panel is the list of eligible candidates, not a promotion order.
Pendency of charges under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is not a bar to promotion.
Framing of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is a bar to promotion.
Currency of punishment is also a bar to promotion.

Reading Section 7 and Schedule XI of the 2016 Act

Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 deals with the list of approved candidates and provides that promotion shall be made by the appointing authority from a list of approved candidates. The Division Bench characterised the preparation of that list as a procedural aspect.

Schedule XI of the Rules prescribes the procedure for preparation of the approved list. Clause II of Schedule XI governs consideration of members for inclusion in the approved list. The bench read Clause II carefully and noted that the pendency of charges framed under Rule 17-B of the Discipline and Appeal Rules is a bar to inclusion of a name in the approved list itself. Clauses 11, 12, and 17 of Schedule XI deal with the effect of punishments on promotion.

The bench drew the following inference from the combined reading: if an employee facing charges under Rule 17-B is not eligible for inclusion in the panel, it “follows naturally” that such a person, even if already included in the panel, is not entitled to actual promotion when disciplinary proceedings are initiated before the promotion order is issued. The bench said the purpose and object of the entire procedure is to ensure that tainted officials are not promoted to higher posts.

The bench applied a rule of constructive interpretation, holding that the Act and the procedures contemplated must be read conjointly and holistically so that the promotion rules achieve their goal. Allowing an officer facing TDP charges to claim promotion on the ground of panel inclusion would, in the bench's view, defeat that object entirely.

Why the Timing of Proceedings Does Not Matter

The Single Judge's order had focused on the sequence of events: the panel was prepared first, and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated only after. The respondent's counsel also pressed this point, relying on the Balamohana Murugan line of authority which treats the crucial date for panel preparation as determinative.

The Division Bench rejected that framing. It held that it is immaterial whether disciplinary proceedings are initiated before or after the preparation of the panel. The panel, in the bench's analysis, is a list of eligible officers and not a promotion. It is procedural in character and cannot be construed as promotion. No right accrues from it. A right accrues only after an order of promotion is actually issued.

The bench concluded that even if a name is included in the panel, and before the grant of actual promotion any departmental proceedings are initiated — in the present case TDP proceedings — the officer is not eligible for promotion under the provisions of the Act and the procedures contemplated. The sequence in which the panel is prepared relative to when the TDP proceedings are initiated does not change this position.

Order

The Division Bench set aside the writ order dated 17 July 2023 passed in WP No. 17040 of 2023 and allowed WA No. 435 of 2024. No costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.