In a significant ruling on government promotions, the Madras High Court has overturned a Single Judge’s order that granted notional promotion to a Rural Welfare Officer. The Division Bench held that there was no abnormal delay on the part of the authorities and that the employee did not meet eligibility requirements earlier due to his own service record.
The judgment was delivered on February 12, 2026, in Government of Tamil Nadu vs M. Rajesh Kumar.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
Background of the Case
The dispute began when M. Rajesh Kumar, a government employee, sought notional promotion as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I by including his name in the promotion panel for the year 2000.
He was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant in Thanjavur District on April 21, 1994. Later, he was transferred to Sivagangai District in December 1998. His probation was declared on May 31, 1999, after he passed the required departmental examination.
To qualify for promotion as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, an employee must:
- Complete probation
- Undergo foundational training at Bhavanisagar
- Serve at least one year as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II
Rajesh Kumar argued that administrative delay prevented him from meeting these requirements earlier. The Single Judge accepted his plea in 2022 and directed the authorities to grant him notional promotion with service and monetary benefits.
The State government challenged that order before the Division Bench.
Government’s Stand
Appearing for the State, the Additional Government Pleader argued that there was no delay attributable to the department.
The government pointed out that the employee had taken more than 524 days of leave without pay between 1994 and 1998. This, it said, delayed his probation and overall career progression.
It was further submitted that immediately after his probation was declared on May 31, 1999, he was sent for training in July 2000 and later posted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II in September 2001. He completed the mandatory one-year service and became eligible only in September 2002.
According to the State, he was rightly considered for promotion in the 2003–2004 panel and promoted in April 2003.
Employee’s Argument
Counsel for Rajesh Kumar maintained that once probation was declared in May 1999, the authorities should have promptly sent him for training and posted him in Grade-II.
He argued that the delay in training and posting was administrative and should not be held against the employee. “The posting of an employee lies entirely within the control of the authorities,” his counsel submitted.
The employee contended that had he been sent earlier, he could have qualified for inclusion in the 2000 panel.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench examined the service timeline carefully.
The Court noted that the employee was sent for foundational training on July 5, 2000, shortly after his probation declaration. It found no “abnormal delay” in this process.
The Bench observed that he served as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II from September 15, 2001 to September 14, 2002. Therefore, he acquired full eligibility only in September 2002.
“The promotion is not a fundamental right, however, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right,” the Bench remarked.
The judges emphasized that eligibility must exist at the relevant time. They found that the employee did not meet the criteria required for inclusion in the 2000 panel.
The Court also took note of his service record, particularly the 524 days of leave without pay. It observed that an employee who remained absent for such a long period soon after joining service “cannot claim equity” against the department when no deliberate delay is established.
The Bench further clarified that in government administration, postings cannot always be made with “mathematical precision.” What matters is whether there was motivated or intentional delay. In this case, the Court found none.
The Decision
Setting aside the Single Judge’s order dated March 14, 2022, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
The Court held that there was no infirmity in the department’s decision and that the employee was rightly promoted in 2003 after fulfilling eligibility requirements.
The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. No costs were awarded.
Case Title: Government of Tamil Nadu vs M. Rajesh Kumar
Case No.: W.A. No. 2616 of 2022
Decision Date: February 12, 2026
